From Sudan: 'Ahmed Ya Habibi'
A beautiful lyric poem in Praise of Prophet Muhammed (salla Allahu alehi wa salam,May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). 'Ahmed' is the the name of Prophet Muhammed (Saala Allahu aleghi wa salam) in Jennat(Paradise) whilst 'Ya, Habibi' means 'Oh, Beloved' (of Allah).
Friday, 27 May 2011
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Monday, 25 April 2011
Narration
"Do not be saddened by what people say about you. If it is false, it would
be like a good deed you have not performed. If true, it would be like an
evil deed whose punishment has been prematurely extracted" - Prophet
Jesus,peace be upon him be peace.
be like a good deed you have not performed. If true, it would be like an
evil deed whose punishment has been prematurely extracted" - Prophet
Jesus,peace be upon him be peace.
Menzuma from Ethiopia
Ma sha Allah,A menzuma;devotional chant in praise of prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu alehi wa salam)from Ethiopia, in Arabic and Amharic:
Brazil: islam on the rize in favelas
Brazil: Islam on the rize in favelas by France_24english
The only slight disagreement I have is with the brother who said that Muslim countries don't have significant drug problems:Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in fact, have the highest rathes of intravenous drug use(specifically heroin) in the world.
But even with such a high rate of usage,as he pointed out,the violence,territorial disputes and shoot outs are not nearly as marked as they are in the Rio Favelas, in Medellin or in the American ghettoes to the north.
It goes without saying that Islam,as properly practised does have the potential to purify society ofthe sorts of social ills seen in the favelas.
Hip Hop (of the more politically minded; socially conscious variety) has been instrumental in introducing many to Islam, to the extent that it is often referred to as the unofficial religion of Hip Hop.
May Allah bestow uponus the strength to be better Muslims.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Different Version of Qasida Burda (lyric poem in praise of The Last Prophet salla Allahu alehi wa salam)
This is a really beautiful rendition of Qasida Burda by a collective from Hydrabad, ma sha Allah! May Allah elevate their rank.
Qasida recited by Toufeequddin AbulUlai in Hyderabad
Ya Muhammad Allah Wali (O Muhammad, Allah's Chosen One)
Monday, 18 April 2011
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
An Attempt At Applying Psychological Principles To The Understanding Of The Development of Shiism, with Specific Reference to Iran
The following extract is taken from the chapter,"Persian Letter" in the book,"The Road to Mecca" by the Austrian Jewish convert to Islam, Muhammad Asad (born Leopold Weiss). This is the first part of the excerpt, more soon,in sha Allah (Allah willing):
Such extravagant laments were a far cry indeed from the true,historical picture of those early happenings that had caused a never-healed schism in the world of Islam:the division of the Muslim community into Sunnites, who form the bulk of the Muslim peoples and stand firm on the principle of an elective succession to the Caliphate, and Shiites, who maintain that the prophet designated Ali, his son-in-law, as a rightful heir and successor. In reality, however, the prophet died without nominating any successor, whereupon one of his oldest most faithful companions, Abu Bakr, was elected khalifa by the overwhelming majority of the community. Abu Bakar was succeeded by Umar and the latter by Uthman; and only after Uthman’s death was Ali elected to the caliphate. There was, as I knew well even in my Iranian days, nothing evil or wicked about Ali’s three predecessors. They were undoubtedly the noblest figures of Islamic history after the Prophet, and had for many years been among his intimate Companions; and they were certainly not‘usurpers’, having been elected by the people in the free exercise of the right accorded to them by Islam. It was unwillingness to accept wholeheartedly the results of those popular elections that led to subsequent struggles for power, to Ali’s death, and to the transformation – under the fifth Caliph, Mu’awiyya – of the original, republican form of the Islamic state into a hereditary kingship, and, ultimately, to Husayan’s death at Karbala. Yes, I had known all this before I came to Iran; but here I was struck by the boundless emotion which that old, tragic tale of thirteen centuries ago could still arouse among the Iranian people whenever the names of Ali, Hasan or Husayn were mentioned. I began to wonder; Was it the innate melancholy of the Iranians and their sense of the dramatic that had caused them to embrace the Shia doctrine?-or was it the thragic quality of the latter’s origin that had led to this intense Iranian melancholy?
By degrees, over a number of months, a startling answer took shape in my mind.
When, in the middle of the seventh century, the armies of Caliph Umar conquered the ancient Saasanian Empire, bringing Islam with them, Iran’s Zoroastrian cult had already long been reduced to rigid formalism and was thus unable to oppose effectively the dynamic new idea that had come from Arabia. But at the time when the Arab conquest burst upon it, Iran was passing through a period of social and intellectual ferment which seemed to promise a national regeneration. This hope of an inner, organic revival was shattered by the Arab invasion; and the Iranians, abandoning their own historic line of development, henceforth accommodated themselves to the cultural and ethical concepts that had been brought in from outside.
The advent of Islam represented in Iran,as in so many other countries,a tremendous social advance;it destroyed the old Iranian caste system and brought into being a new community of free,equal people;it opened new channels for cultural energies that had long lain dormant and inarticulate:but with all this, the proud descendants of Darius and Xerxes could never forget that the historical continuity of their national life,the organic connection between their Yesterday and Today, had suddenly been broken. A people whose innermost character had found its expression in the Baroque dualism of the Zand religion and its almost pantheistic worship of the four elements-air, water, fire and earth- was now faced with Islam's austere uncompromisisng monotheism and its passion for the Absolute. The transistion was too sharp and painful to allow to allow the Iranians to subordinate their deeply rooted national consciousness to the supranational concept of Islam. In spite of their speedy and apparently voluntary acceptance of the new religion,they subconciously equated the victory of the Islamic idea with Iran's national defeat; and the feeling of having been defeated and irrevocably torn out of the context of their ancient cultural heritage-a feeling desperately intense for all its vagueness-was destined to corrode their national self-confidence for centuries to come. Unlike so many other nations to whom the acceptance of Islam gave almost immediately a most positive impulse to further cultural development, the Iranians' first-and, in a way,most durable-reaction to it was on of deep humiliation and repressed resentment.
The resntment had to be repressed and smothered in the dark folds of the subconscious,for in the meantime Islam had become Iran's own faith. But in their hatred of the Arabian conquest,the Iranians instictively resorted to what psychoanalysis describes as 'overcompensation';they began to regard the faith brought to them by their Arabian conquerors as something that was exclusively their own. They did it by subtly transforming the rational, unmystical God-consciousness of the Arabs into its very opposite:mystical fanaticism and sombre emotion.
Such extravagant laments were a far cry indeed from the true,historical picture of those early happenings that had caused a never-healed schism in the world of Islam:the division of the Muslim community into Sunnites, who form the bulk of the Muslim peoples and stand firm on the principle of an elective succession to the Caliphate, and Shiites, who maintain that the prophet designated Ali, his son-in-law, as a rightful heir and successor. In reality, however, the prophet died without nominating any successor, whereupon one of his oldest most faithful companions, Abu Bakr, was elected khalifa by the overwhelming majority of the community. Abu Bakar was succeeded by Umar and the latter by Uthman; and only after Uthman’s death was Ali elected to the caliphate. There was, as I knew well even in my Iranian days, nothing evil or wicked about Ali’s three predecessors. They were undoubtedly the noblest figures of Islamic history after the Prophet, and had for many years been among his intimate Companions; and they were certainly not‘usurpers’, having been elected by the people in the free exercise of the right accorded to them by Islam. It was unwillingness to accept wholeheartedly the results of those popular elections that led to subsequent struggles for power, to Ali’s death, and to the transformation – under the fifth Caliph, Mu’awiyya – of the original, republican form of the Islamic state into a hereditary kingship, and, ultimately, to Husayan’s death at Karbala. Yes, I had known all this before I came to Iran; but here I was struck by the boundless emotion which that old, tragic tale of thirteen centuries ago could still arouse among the Iranian people whenever the names of Ali, Hasan or Husayn were mentioned. I began to wonder; Was it the innate melancholy of the Iranians and their sense of the dramatic that had caused them to embrace the Shia doctrine?-or was it the thragic quality of the latter’s origin that had led to this intense Iranian melancholy?
By degrees, over a number of months, a startling answer took shape in my mind.
When, in the middle of the seventh century, the armies of Caliph Umar conquered the ancient Saasanian Empire, bringing Islam with them, Iran’s Zoroastrian cult had already long been reduced to rigid formalism and was thus unable to oppose effectively the dynamic new idea that had come from Arabia. But at the time when the Arab conquest burst upon it, Iran was passing through a period of social and intellectual ferment which seemed to promise a national regeneration. This hope of an inner, organic revival was shattered by the Arab invasion; and the Iranians, abandoning their own historic line of development, henceforth accommodated themselves to the cultural and ethical concepts that had been brought in from outside.
The advent of Islam represented in Iran,as in so many other countries,a tremendous social advance;it destroyed the old Iranian caste system and brought into being a new community of free,equal people;it opened new channels for cultural energies that had long lain dormant and inarticulate:but with all this, the proud descendants of Darius and Xerxes could never forget that the historical continuity of their national life,the organic connection between their Yesterday and Today, had suddenly been broken. A people whose innermost character had found its expression in the Baroque dualism of the Zand religion and its almost pantheistic worship of the four elements-air, water, fire and earth- was now faced with Islam's austere uncompromisisng monotheism and its passion for the Absolute. The transistion was too sharp and painful to allow to allow the Iranians to subordinate their deeply rooted national consciousness to the supranational concept of Islam. In spite of their speedy and apparently voluntary acceptance of the new religion,they subconciously equated the victory of the Islamic idea with Iran's national defeat; and the feeling of having been defeated and irrevocably torn out of the context of their ancient cultural heritage-a feeling desperately intense for all its vagueness-was destined to corrode their national self-confidence for centuries to come. Unlike so many other nations to whom the acceptance of Islam gave almost immediately a most positive impulse to further cultural development, the Iranians' first-and, in a way,most durable-reaction to it was on of deep humiliation and repressed resentment.
The resntment had to be repressed and smothered in the dark folds of the subconscious,for in the meantime Islam had become Iran's own faith. But in their hatred of the Arabian conquest,the Iranians instictively resorted to what psychoanalysis describes as 'overcompensation';they began to regard the faith brought to them by their Arabian conquerors as something that was exclusively their own. They did it by subtly transforming the rational, unmystical God-consciousness of the Arabs into its very opposite:mystical fanaticism and sombre emotion.
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Sindidi-A qasida from Senegal
"Sindidi is the name of a particular Qasida of Sheikh Ahmadou Bamba [RA] who was from what today is called the Diourbel region of Senegal at the end of 18th and beginning of 19th gregorian centuries.He fonded a tariqa known as the Muridiya."
Sindidi is entirely in Arabic. It is, however, frequently sung by Wolof speakers in the distinctive Senegalese style (which I first became familiar with via the group 'Super Etoile De Dakar' with whom a young Wolof singer by the name of Youssou N'Dour used to sing).
Sindidi
1. O God! I implore thee by the blessings of Mustapha O God! And by the blessings of thy beloved friend Abraham O God!
2. And by the blessings of thy interlocutor Moses, and Salih, Al Khidr, and by the blessings of Shu’aib, and by the blessings of Ishmael O God!
3. And by the blessings of Solomon, Noah, Jonah, Job, and by the blessings of Zakariah, John, Hud O God!
4. By the blessings of Aaron, Joshua, Elias, Adam, David, by the blessings of Dhul-kifl, Jesus, Lot. O God!
5. By the blessings of Joseph, Isaac, and others among thy apostles and messengers O God!
6. And by the blessings of the unity of the Angels, and those among them encompassed with the purest, Divine Essence such as Gabriel and Michael O God!
7. By the blessings of Israfil who is entrusted with Blowing the Trumpet, and Azrael who shall duly seize the soul of every creature O God!
8. By the blessings of the companions of the Prophet and the friends of God, as well as those who actively practice their knowledge among the people of religious Authority O God!
9. By the blessings of Abu Bakr the truthful, Omar who distinguished truth from falsehood, Uthman the possessor of two lights, and Ali, the father of the two grandsons of the Prophet O God!
10. By the blessings of Imam Malik, the highly distinguished, Imam As Shafi, Imam Abu Hanafi, and the praiseworthy, Imam Ahmad Ibn Anbal O God!
11. By the blessings of the Exalted Pen, the Preserved Tablet, thy Magnificent Throne and Exalted Chair O God!
12. By the blessings of the Quran, the Torah, The Psalms of David, and the Gospel of the Spirit of God O God!
13. Transmit my salutations of peace and blessings upon him ( the Prophet), his family, companions, and wives O God!
14. O Lord! Drop on us the curtain of well being (‘Afia) and bestow upon us our goals in this world and in the Hereafter O God!
15. Open for us all gates of graces that thou hath opened to those endowed with a complete state of piety O God!
16. Impel us to trod on the distinct path of righteousness, Preserve us from the pitfalls and from the Evils of the Jinns and Satan O God!
17. Yield to us all our ambitions, allow us to attain our objectives, bestow upon us any grace we choose O God.
18. Soften for us the hearts of any possessor of reluctance and oppression, smoothen all the hardships O God!
19. Prolong our lives, strengthen our bodies, bestow guidance upon us, and grant us felicity (tawfiq) O God!
20. Destroy any enemy whose intention is to cause harm before he gains access to us O God! O God!
21. Protect us from all kinds of ruin, deliver us from the calamities of the world, all the time O God!
22. Protect us from epidemics, illness, agony, afflictions, vehement earthquakes as well as poverty O God!
23. Protect us from blemishes, insufficiency, from the fury of a tyrant, vileness, debility, hunger and thirst O God!
24. Protect us from all forms of trials, from infectious disease from being burnt in fire, from being drowned in water, from lightning, thunder, theft and vain labor O God!
25. Protect us from excessive heat and cold, from plundering, from oppression, from hostility, from delusion, from grief, and from being paralyzed O God!
26. Protect us from anxiety, from transgression, from stumbling in error, from transmutation, and from defamation O God!
27. Protect us from lack of sustenance, from the influences of evil spirits, and from fading away due to illness O God!
28. Protect us from the evils of this world and of the next as well as their dreadful humiliations O God! O God!
29. O thou who hath power over all things, overwhelming the entire creation, being firmly established in Thine Magnificent Throne of Authority O God!
30. Verily, I beg thee for a fearing heart and a humble one, an extensive knowledge of tremendous use O God!
31. I beg thee for an accepted repentance, a lofty station, a virtuous and pious wife O God!
32. Be our fortress against the evils of the possessor of envy, against the evils of the tongue, as well as against the evils of the eye O God!
33. Be our refuge against the evils of sorcery, the evils of the creatures, men or jinns, and against the evils of venomous creatures O God!
34. O mine confident! I take Thee in this world and in the hereafter as my inaccessible fortress: the one in whom I seek shelter O God!
35. Abandon me not with my own soul (nafs), lest I go astray: be responsive whenever I beseech thee O God!
36. Cause my tongue and my heart to remember Thee and to hold a perfect belief in Thee at the crucial moment of death O God!
37. Establish permanently in mine heart the knowledge of Certainty (Yaqin); Let no fear abide therein, until I passionately love Thy Ultimate encounter O God!
38. Cause my death to be the announcement of good news, and to be a complete rest, and to be a protection against all pain, distress and fear O God!
39. Shield my body against tortures in the grave, whenever the soul is separated from me. Let it not undergo any deterioration nor hardship. O God!
40. Be my Assistant and Companion at the time my body is buried in the grave, where I may become lonely O God!
41. Join me not with that which causes terror in the grave, preserve me from anything that I fear O God!
42. Protect me, my mother and all those who bow to Thy will, Amen O God!
43. Forgive us and my mother, cover our defects, bestow benevolence upon us and her; protect us from terror O God!
44. Grant us complete forgiveness, have mercy on her. She has no one but Thee; and verily Thou art the kind One O God!
45. Be with us in the barrier and in the grave, preserve us from any distress or any kind of fear O God!
46. Do not afflict my mother with that which she can not bear and do not disappoint the hope she has in Thee O God!
47. Quench our thirst and hers in the water of Kauthar, which Thou has reserved for the one whom Thou hath chosen over the entire creation O God!
48. That was he who provided guidance to he who roamed in error, destroyed he who rejected faith and yielded aid to he who had innermost fear in Thee O God!
49. Such a one was Muhammad, the Fine Flower of the elects, who will lead us into the everlasting Paradise on the Day of Resurrection O God!
50. Upon him be Eternal peace and blessings, forever and ever, and upon any who follows him till Doomsday O God!
Another version of Sindidi with French voice-over translation:
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
'My Brother, The Islamist'-BBC iPlayer
There's been quite a bit of discussion online about a programme which was recently shown on BBC in the UK called "My Brother, the Islamist." I have watched parts of the programme on BBC iplayer and found it to be less sensationalist than I had expected.
The film is basically an account of the filmmaker's attempt to rekindle his relatinship with his stepbrother,Richard (now Salahuddin) who has coverted to Islam and who, at the time of making the film, had been Muslim for just 6 months. Salahuddin differs from the average convert in that he is involved with what, to most in the Muslim community, is a fringe political group/outfit known as Islam4UK who are headed by Anjem Chaudhury and are best known for stunts which, to many Muslims, have only served to harden attitudes to the Muslim community in the UK.
The film maker appeared to be frustrated by his inabilty to form any real connection with his stepbrother but I would caution against entirely writing off the possibilty of any type of meaningful relationship or in viewing the current modus operandi of Salahuddin(Richard)as being set in stone. It's understandable why one, particularly outside of Islam, might see the sitauation as such-Saahuddin, inspite of being a very new covert,speaks with what appears great authority on issues as they relate to Islam- but to more seasoned Muslims, and indeed any Muslim outside of the rather exclusivist Islam4UK,some of Saahuddin's assertions would provoke bemusement and possibly derision. For example, Salahauddin states that he cannot shake his stepbrother's hand as he(the stepbrother) is a non-Muslim. There is certanly no hadith or indeed any scholarly consensus recommeding that Muslims shake anyone's hand with anything but the right hand.
It was actually a sympathetic portrayal and I really found myself warming to some of the young lads, both converts and born Muslims, featured. The humour lay in their attempts to cover up their uncertainty about being at the flag burning demo with bravado and sloganeering. Although, very assured, they are, as evidenced by the pamphlets they read(all Wahabbi/Salafi published literature)at the very early stages of learning. I think that what the programme documented, perhaps unwittingly,was simply some of the psychological processes and behaviours that are the mainstay of any conversion to Islam (albeit with some additional features deriving from this particular group being part of a fringe sector of the Muslim community).
Another point of note is that, although, the Islamist group is seen as anti-Western. Traditional Muslims consider that change comes only when you change yourself. The thinking of some Islamists-that change can be brought about through protests, violence (although I don't think this group are violent)-is derived from a Western world view.
Perhaps as Salahauddin does engage with the Quran and hadith literature hi and books of Islamic jurisprudence of his accord he will be in a position to critique the readings of ahadith and Islamic literature that Anjem Chaudhury is directing his students towards. This might in turn lead to his attaching himself to the wider Muslim community and open him up to a much wider range of scholarship.
The video below details attempts, by one Luton-based Muslim group identifying with the Salafi movement,to challenge al-Muhajiroun which was, at one point, led by the same Anjem Chadhury who was featured in 'My Brother, The Islamist'
The film is basically an account of the filmmaker's attempt to rekindle his relatinship with his stepbrother,Richard (now Salahuddin) who has coverted to Islam and who, at the time of making the film, had been Muslim for just 6 months. Salahuddin differs from the average convert in that he is involved with what, to most in the Muslim community, is a fringe political group/outfit known as Islam4UK who are headed by Anjem Chaudhury and are best known for stunts which, to many Muslims, have only served to harden attitudes to the Muslim community in the UK.
The film maker appeared to be frustrated by his inabilty to form any real connection with his stepbrother but I would caution against entirely writing off the possibilty of any type of meaningful relationship or in viewing the current modus operandi of Salahuddin(Richard)as being set in stone. It's understandable why one, particularly outside of Islam, might see the sitauation as such-Saahuddin, inspite of being a very new covert,speaks with what appears great authority on issues as they relate to Islam- but to more seasoned Muslims, and indeed any Muslim outside of the rather exclusivist Islam4UK,some of Saahuddin's assertions would provoke bemusement and possibly derision. For example, Salahauddin states that he cannot shake his stepbrother's hand as he(the stepbrother) is a non-Muslim. There is certanly no hadith or indeed any scholarly consensus recommeding that Muslims shake anyone's hand with anything but the right hand.
It was actually a sympathetic portrayal and I really found myself warming to some of the young lads, both converts and born Muslims, featured. The humour lay in their attempts to cover up their uncertainty about being at the flag burning demo with bravado and sloganeering. Although, very assured, they are, as evidenced by the pamphlets they read(all Wahabbi/Salafi published literature)at the very early stages of learning. I think that what the programme documented, perhaps unwittingly,was simply some of the psychological processes and behaviours that are the mainstay of any conversion to Islam (albeit with some additional features deriving from this particular group being part of a fringe sector of the Muslim community).
Another point of note is that, although, the Islamist group is seen as anti-Western. Traditional Muslims consider that change comes only when you change yourself. The thinking of some Islamists-that change can be brought about through protests, violence (although I don't think this group are violent)-is derived from a Western world view.
Perhaps as Salahauddin does engage with the Quran and hadith literature hi and books of Islamic jurisprudence of his accord he will be in a position to critique the readings of ahadith and Islamic literature that Anjem Chaudhury is directing his students towards. This might in turn lead to his attaching himself to the wider Muslim community and open him up to a much wider range of scholarship.
The video below details attempts, by one Luton-based Muslim group identifying with the Salafi movement,to challenge al-Muhajiroun which was, at one point, led by the same Anjem Chadhury who was featured in 'My Brother, The Islamist'
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Depression, Mental illness and Possession
Sh.Abu Eesa Niamatullah
Sh. Abu Talha from Iraq
Dr.Shazad Amin, Psychiatrist
Panel Discussion, with Questions and Answers
Sh. Abu Talha from Iraq
Dr.Shazad Amin, Psychiatrist
Panel Discussion, with Questions and Answers
Monday, 4 April 2011
Hadith
Allah the Exalted said, “O Son of Adam! Busy yourself in worshiping Me, and I will fill your chest with riches and dissipate your meekness. Otherwise, I will fill your chest with distracting affairs and will not do away with your meekness.”
-At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah
-At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah
"The BNP is a Nazi party!"
A classic!
The BNP must have thought that Glasgow North East, with its economic deprivation and a recent arrival of overseas migrants was, well, 'in the bag.'How wrong could they be?
The BNP must have thought that Glasgow North East, with its economic deprivation and a recent arrival of overseas migrants was, well, 'in the bag.'How wrong could they be?
Saturday, 2 April 2011
On Prayer
Shaykh AbdalHakim Murad: "A busy life makes the Prayer harder; but the Prayer makes a busy life easier." (Contentions)
Sheikh Hamza Yusuf on Image Making
Touches on the subject of excessive use of photography which, he argues, "divorces us two times from reality"-many of us already live without any real recognition of the illusory nature of this world and so image making, especially if excessive,only increases that alienation from The Real.
Faith can enter a person's heart just through meeting a pious person, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf suggests and points to Sidi Gai Eaton (May Allah have marcy on him) who spoke of how meeting a pious person(in the real sense) made him enter Islam, a reality to which Imam Al-Ghazali (May Allah have mercy on him) also attested. Sheikh Abdal-Hakim Murad, also alluded to the power Allah has placed in the countenace of the true devotee by stating that the believer's best argument is his face.
Faith can enter a person's heart just through meeting a pious person, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf suggests and points to Sidi Gai Eaton (May Allah have marcy on him) who spoke of how meeting a pious person(in the real sense) made him enter Islam, a reality to which Imam Al-Ghazali (May Allah have mercy on him) also attested. Sheikh Abdal-Hakim Murad, also alluded to the power Allah has placed in the countenace of the true devotee by stating that the believer's best argument is his face.
Usury
In the present age, it seems that it is only within Islam, and in a few minor Christian and Jewish groups, that teachings prohibiting dealing in usury remain intact. Elsewhere such teachings have either been long abandoned or been subject to human caprice as the following excerpt shows:
"400 BC - 65 AD in Ancient Rome and Greece - The infamous philosophers who condemned Usury were Plato, Aristotle, the two Catos, Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch.
One of the first recorded History of Usury was in India, the Hindu's Vedic in 2000 - 1400 B.C. By 600 B.C, the Buddhist's Jakkata shows contempt for Usury saying “hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it.” During this time, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu law-maker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of Brahmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. By 2nd century AD the concept of Usury was diluted, and today in India it is "condemned in principle, usury refers only to interest charged above the prevailing socially accepted range and is no longer prohibited or controlled in any significant way."
The Prophet Ezekiel includes usury in a list of “abominable things,” along with rape, murder, robbery and idolatry. Ezekiel 18:19-13. Jews are forbidden to lend at interest to one another. Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25:35-37."
From Islamicity
"400 BC - 65 AD in Ancient Rome and Greece - The infamous philosophers who condemned Usury were Plato, Aristotle, the two Catos, Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch.
One of the first recorded History of Usury was in India, the Hindu's Vedic in 2000 - 1400 B.C. By 600 B.C, the Buddhist's Jakkata shows contempt for Usury saying “hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it.” During this time, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu law-maker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of Brahmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. By 2nd century AD the concept of Usury was diluted, and today in India it is "condemned in principle, usury refers only to interest charged above the prevailing socially accepted range and is no longer prohibited or controlled in any significant way."
The Prophet Ezekiel includes usury in a list of “abominable things,” along with rape, murder, robbery and idolatry. Ezekiel 18:19-13. Jews are forbidden to lend at interest to one another. Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25:35-37."
From Islamicity
Hadith
The Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Let not respect for men prevent any of you from speaking the truth when he knows it." [Sahih Muslim]
Friday, 1 April 2011
On Paganism
"Paganism in the proper sense of the term is an idolatry applied to the natural world, but it is also, in most cases, the debris of a religion in the final stages of decay, when its adherents, like dogs sniff at the pointed finger rather than going where the finger points; idolatry, animism, fetishism and other such aberrations bear all bear witness to the fact that phenomena which were once adored as symbols of transcendent realities have come to be worshipped for their own sakes. One cannot always mark the dividing line between images which are adored for what they symbolize and those which are worshipped as gods."-Gai Eaton
Shariah
"In the thesis of Professor John A. Makdisi (published in the North Carolina Law Review, February 1999, under the title "The Islamic Origins of the Common Law") the Common Law was adopted virtually intact by King Henry II in 1150 from the Maliki fiqh as practised in either Islamic Spain or Islamic Sicily. The USA, as a Common Law Country, already has Shariah as part of its jurisprudential system."
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Response of Sidi Alija Izetbegovic (May Allah have mercy on his soul) to an Interviewer's Question on Morality
Izetbegovic:
"Since morality is our act out of duty,not interest, there is a question why would a man act against his interest if there is nothing above or out of it? The idea of good cannot at all be defined logically. Kant proved mathematically that no duty can be derived from pure mind. Nobody, as far as I know,managed to successfully challenge this theory.Because doing good often does not pay off. if it did, selfish ones and scum would rush to be examples of virtue. Remember how the people we admire,real or characters from literature,were all sufferers, Socrates, Antigone, Jesus etc. So, if there is only this life, if there is no God,those sufferers are not heroes, but plain losers and their sacrifice is of no meaning or use.
As a young man I saw a film in which a man loses his life because he refuses to betray his fellow fighters. Then I thought about the controversy in my own soul.All the time I was on the hero's side, which practically meant that I wanted him to face the firing squad. Between death and betrayal, betrayal seemed worse. Why? There is only one reasonable answer: because there is something greater than life. In a universe without God, this man's sacrifice is deprived of any sense. And obviously it is not, we all feel it.
The problem is consistency, actually inconsistency. Believers should be led by duty, those who don't believe by interest. This is the only logical thing. But it does not always happen like this. People say one thing, do another, so we have many immoral believers and moral atheists. Nevertheless, one thing is for sure:no moral system can be founded without God. You have to call upon something above life and interest, and every calling upon something upon something above life is some sort of theism or faith....
The equality of people is a religious category. Peole are equal and represent value only if they are created by God. As a product of nature, the way they are, they would be completely unequal and there is no room for the "holiness of human life", so Stalins's 'cistka' are absolutely 'logical'etc....
I could conclude:there are moral atheists, but atheism as a teaching, a view of life, has nothing to do with morality. Of course, this is my opinion, you ask me and I tell you what I think."
-Interview for Ljiljan, Sarajevo, July 1999, which appears in "Inescapable Questions," pg 515, by Alija Izetbegovic
Alija Izetbegovic was a Bosnian Muslim intellectual and activistwho was imprisoned, for his written word,by the Communist regime of the Former Yugoslavia. With the fall of Communism, he served as president of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war of aggression waged by Serbs in the 1990's.
May Allah reward him abundantly for his efforts and make the distance between him and his faults like that of the distance "between east and the west."
"Since morality is our act out of duty,not interest, there is a question why would a man act against his interest if there is nothing above or out of it? The idea of good cannot at all be defined logically. Kant proved mathematically that no duty can be derived from pure mind. Nobody, as far as I know,managed to successfully challenge this theory.Because doing good often does not pay off. if it did, selfish ones and scum would rush to be examples of virtue. Remember how the people we admire,real or characters from literature,were all sufferers, Socrates, Antigone, Jesus etc. So, if there is only this life, if there is no God,those sufferers are not heroes, but plain losers and their sacrifice is of no meaning or use.
As a young man I saw a film in which a man loses his life because he refuses to betray his fellow fighters. Then I thought about the controversy in my own soul.All the time I was on the hero's side, which practically meant that I wanted him to face the firing squad. Between death and betrayal, betrayal seemed worse. Why? There is only one reasonable answer: because there is something greater than life. In a universe without God, this man's sacrifice is deprived of any sense. And obviously it is not, we all feel it.
The problem is consistency, actually inconsistency. Believers should be led by duty, those who don't believe by interest. This is the only logical thing. But it does not always happen like this. People say one thing, do another, so we have many immoral believers and moral atheists. Nevertheless, one thing is for sure:no moral system can be founded without God. You have to call upon something above life and interest, and every calling upon something upon something above life is some sort of theism or faith....
The equality of people is a religious category. Peole are equal and represent value only if they are created by God. As a product of nature, the way they are, they would be completely unequal and there is no room for the "holiness of human life", so Stalins's 'cistka' are absolutely 'logical'etc....
I could conclude:there are moral atheists, but atheism as a teaching, a view of life, has nothing to do with morality. Of course, this is my opinion, you ask me and I tell you what I think."
-Interview for Ljiljan, Sarajevo, July 1999, which appears in "Inescapable Questions," pg 515, by Alija Izetbegovic
Alija Izetbegovic was a Bosnian Muslim intellectual and activistwho was imprisoned, for his written word,by the Communist regime of the Former Yugoslavia. With the fall of Communism, he served as president of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war of aggression waged by Serbs in the 1990's.
May Allah reward him abundantly for his efforts and make the distance between him and his faults like that of the distance "between east and the west."
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Hadith Qudsi
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him),the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"When Allah decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: 'My mercy prevails over my wrath."
[Muslim (also by al-Bukhari, an-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah)]
D'après Abu Hurayrah ,le Messager de Dieu(salla Allahu alehi wa salam) a dit :
Quand Dieu a décrété la Création Il s'est engagé Lui-même en écrivant dans Son livre, qui repose près de Lui : Ma miséricorde l'emporte sur Ma colère.
(Cela a été rapporté par Muslim - et aussi par al-Bukhari, an-Nasa'i et Ibn Majah).
"When Allah decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: 'My mercy prevails over my wrath."
[Muslim (also by al-Bukhari, an-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah)]
D'après Abu Hurayrah ,le Messager de Dieu(salla Allahu alehi wa salam) a dit :
Quand Dieu a décrété la Création Il s'est engagé Lui-même en écrivant dans Son livre, qui repose près de Lui : Ma miséricorde l'emporte sur Ma colère.
(Cela a été rapporté par Muslim - et aussi par al-Bukhari, an-Nasa'i et Ibn Majah).
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Amal, Suggested by A Malaysian Raqi, To Combat Jinn Based Problems
"A) Preparatory Amal - to strengthen recitations and for protection
zikir LA ILAA HA ILALLAH(There is no God but ALLAH) 1,000x
Sura Ya-seen 1x
B) Amal to Tie Down Many Jinns (Bi-Iznillah)
Istiqfar 3x
Fatihah 1x, Qursi 1x, Al-Baqarah 285-286 1x,
Sura (112) Ikhlas 3x
Salawat/Darood 3x - shortest is "ALLAH humma sali 'ala Muhammad wa 'ala aa-li Muhammad"
niyat - YA ALLAH, YA HAYYU QAYYUM, YA MALIKul QUDUS, YA WAHAB, YA RABB, please protect me from all calamities, all sihir, all jinn, and the evils from all creatures (repeat 3x)
Salawat/Darood 21x
Bismillah hir Rahman nir Rahim 21x
ALLAH HU AKBAR 33x
Qursi 1x
Sura (2) Al-Baqarah verse 163 21x
Qursi 21x
Sura (36) Ya-seen verse 17-18 21x
Salawat/Darood 21x
Aameen
Do this for 3 days in a row, insyALLAH the sorcerer/jinns will stop bothering you and anyone else
Please do not forget to blow into water immediately after finishing (B). We can use the water to spray the rooms in our house, except bathroom. And we can use the water for drinking and bathing.
For guide on blowing, upon completion of recitations, take deep breathe and blow. Repeat 3 times for each bottle. For ordinary Muslims, all blowings must be finished within 2 minutes from completion of recitations. Otherwise we have do (B) again"
zikir LA ILAA HA ILALLAH(There is no God but ALLAH) 1,000x
Sura Ya-seen 1x
B) Amal to Tie Down Many Jinns (Bi-Iznillah)
Istiqfar 3x
Fatihah 1x, Qursi 1x, Al-Baqarah 285-286 1x,
Sura (112) Ikhlas 3x
Salawat/Darood 3x - shortest is "ALLAH humma sali 'ala Muhammad wa 'ala aa-li Muhammad"
niyat - YA ALLAH, YA HAYYU QAYYUM, YA MALIKul QUDUS, YA WAHAB, YA RABB, please protect me from all calamities, all sihir, all jinn, and the evils from all creatures (repeat 3x)
Salawat/Darood 21x
Bismillah hir Rahman nir Rahim 21x
ALLAH HU AKBAR 33x
Qursi 1x
Sura (2) Al-Baqarah verse 163 21x
Qursi 21x
Sura (36) Ya-seen verse 17-18 21x
Salawat/Darood 21x
Aameen
Do this for 3 days in a row, insyALLAH the sorcerer/jinns will stop bothering you and anyone else
Please do not forget to blow into water immediately after finishing (B). We can use the water to spray the rooms in our house, except bathroom. And we can use the water for drinking and bathing.
For guide on blowing, upon completion of recitations, take deep breathe and blow. Repeat 3 times for each bottle. For ordinary Muslims, all blowings must be finished within 2 minutes from completion of recitations. Otherwise we have do (B) again"
Refuting the idea of the Unity of Religions
In the manual of sacred law,'Umdat al Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri,there is a list of acts that entail leaving Islam. Point number 20 is:
"..to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message(salla Allhu alehi wa salam)to be the religion followed by the entire world(al-Hadiyya al-Ala'iyya(y4),423-24).)
There is also,in 'Umdat al Salik, a section on 'The Abrogation of Previously Revealed Religions' which includes the statements of various scholars, along with their proofs, which refute the idea of the unity of religion. It reads as follows:
w4.3 (Imam Baghawi:)
The Prophet(Allah bless him and grant him peace)said:
"By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent will be an inhabitant of hell"
This is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith that was recorded by Muslim(Sharh al-sunna)
W4.4 (Ibn Kathir:)
Allah Most High says:
Surely those who believe, those of the Jewry, the Christians, and the Sabaeans-whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day, and works rigfhteousness, their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be upon them, and neither shall they sorrow" (Koran 2:62)
Suddi states that the verse "Surely those who believe, etc." was revealed about the former companions of the Salaman the Persian when he mentioned them to the Prophet(Allah bless him and grant him peace, relating how they had been saying, ""They used to pray, fast and believe in you, and testify that you would be sent as a prophet." When he had finished praiseing them, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied, "Salamn, they are the denizens of hell", which came to discomfit Salman greatly, and so Allah revealed this verse.
Further Elaboration On Those Who Continue To Follow The Previous Revelations,In Spite Of Being Aware Of The Message of Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace)
Ibn Naqib:
Shirk or ascribing associates to Allah Most High means to hold that Allah has an equal, whereas He has created you, and to worship another with Him, whether it be a stone, human, sun, moon, prophet, sheikh, jinn, star, angel or other.(p1.1,'Umdat al Salik)
The Quranic verses concerning the enormity of shirk (ascribing partners to Allah)"are very numerous, it being absolutely certain that whoever ascribes associates to Allah and dies in such a state is one of hell's inhabitants, just as whoever believes in Allah and dies as a believer is one of the inhabitants of paradise, even if he should be punished first."
(p1.3,'Umdat al Salik)
"Allah does not forgive that any should be associated with Him, but forgives what is other than that to whomever he wills"(Qur'an 4.48)
Belief in the prophethood of Muhammad(Allah bless him and give him peace) is an essential component of faith, without which one's testimony of faith will be rejected
Imam al-Ghazali (rahim Allah) says, as quoted in 'Umdat al Salik:
"Allah, Most High sent Muhammd(Allah bless him and give him peace), the Qurayshite unlettered prophet, to deliver His inspired message to the entire world, Arabs and non-Arabs,jinn and mankind, superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet's sacred law, except for the provisions of them that the new revelation explicitly reconfirmed. Allah has favoured him above all the other prophets and made him the highest of mankind, rejecting anyone's attesting to the divine onesness by saying, There is no God but Allah", unless they also attest to the Prophet by saying"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". He has obliged man and jinn to beleive everything the Prophet(Allah bless him and grant him peace)has informed us concerning this world and the next, and does not accept anyone's faith unless they beleive in what he has told us will happen after death."
(v2.1)
"..to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message(salla Allhu alehi wa salam)to be the religion followed by the entire world(al-Hadiyya al-Ala'iyya(y4),423-24).)
There is also,in 'Umdat al Salik, a section on 'The Abrogation of Previously Revealed Religions' which includes the statements of various scholars, along with their proofs, which refute the idea of the unity of religion. It reads as follows:
w4.3 (Imam Baghawi:)
The Prophet(Allah bless him and grant him peace)said:
"By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent will be an inhabitant of hell"
This is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith that was recorded by Muslim(Sharh al-sunna)
W4.4 (Ibn Kathir:)
Allah Most High says:
Surely those who believe, those of the Jewry, the Christians, and the Sabaeans-whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day, and works rigfhteousness, their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be upon them, and neither shall they sorrow" (Koran 2:62)
Suddi states that the verse "Surely those who believe, etc." was revealed about the former companions of the Salaman the Persian when he mentioned them to the Prophet(Allah bless him and grant him peace, relating how they had been saying, ""They used to pray, fast and believe in you, and testify that you would be sent as a prophet." When he had finished praiseing them, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied, "Salamn, they are the denizens of hell", which came to discomfit Salman greatly, and so Allah revealed this verse.
Further Elaboration On Those Who Continue To Follow The Previous Revelations,In Spite Of Being Aware Of The Message of Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace)
Ibn Naqib:
Shirk or ascribing associates to Allah Most High means to hold that Allah has an equal, whereas He has created you, and to worship another with Him, whether it be a stone, human, sun, moon, prophet, sheikh, jinn, star, angel or other.(p1.1,'Umdat al Salik)
The Quranic verses concerning the enormity of shirk (ascribing partners to Allah)"are very numerous, it being absolutely certain that whoever ascribes associates to Allah and dies in such a state is one of hell's inhabitants, just as whoever believes in Allah and dies as a believer is one of the inhabitants of paradise, even if he should be punished first."
(p1.3,'Umdat al Salik)
"Allah does not forgive that any should be associated with Him, but forgives what is other than that to whomever he wills"(Qur'an 4.48)
Belief in the prophethood of Muhammad(Allah bless him and give him peace) is an essential component of faith, without which one's testimony of faith will be rejected
Imam al-Ghazali (rahim Allah) says, as quoted in 'Umdat al Salik:
"Allah, Most High sent Muhammd(Allah bless him and give him peace), the Qurayshite unlettered prophet, to deliver His inspired message to the entire world, Arabs and non-Arabs,jinn and mankind, superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet's sacred law, except for the provisions of them that the new revelation explicitly reconfirmed. Allah has favoured him above all the other prophets and made him the highest of mankind, rejecting anyone's attesting to the divine onesness by saying, There is no God but Allah", unless they also attest to the Prophet by saying"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". He has obliged man and jinn to beleive everything the Prophet(Allah bless him and grant him peace)has informed us concerning this world and the next, and does not accept anyone's faith unless they beleive in what he has told us will happen after death."
(v2.1)
Sunday, 27 March 2011
The First Muslim King of England?
The presence of Islam in Western history is a subject that is rarely discussed. Periods of history in which Islam was flourishing in parts of Europe are termed as the Dark Ages and brushed aside. Islam’s presence in Europe in ‘conventional history’ is limited to a few short decades which began through economic migration in the mid 20th century. This cannot be further from the truth, as will be demonstrated in this article.
Islam has not only been known to the academic elite in the Western world for over a thousand years, but has also been known to the general public throughout history.
Islam found its roots, and became known in England in only its 2nd century (8th century C.E.), for which there is ample proof.
The evidence lies with a King of Middle England, King Offa, about whom, peculiarly, very little is said.
King Offa of Mercia was one of the most powerful and prominent Kings of a large portion of England, before the unity of England in the 10th century.
He ruled Mercia, Middle England, between 757 C.E. (139A.H.) until his death in July 796. (179A.H.)
King Offa ordered the Building of the famous ‘Offa’s Dyke‘, situated on what is now the Welsh border. It was built to fulfil a similar purpose to that of the Great Wall of China; to protect his Kingdom from foreign intrusion.
His dominion was extended from Middle England to Wessex and Northumbria, two large English kingdoms, prominent alongside his own, after his daughters were married to the Kings of those regions.[1]
King Offa made important pacts with Charlemagne, the King of Franks and Emperor of the Romans, and with Pope Adrian the 1st. He remained on good terms with these two powerful personalities until his demise.
One of the most interesting facts about King Offa is that he was the first European Monarch, outside of Byzantium, to mint gold coins. It is a particular gold coin, minted by King Offa in 774 C.E. (157 A.H.) which is of particular interest. It was a copy of a gold Abbasid coin, which bares the declaration of Islamic faith, “There is no god but Allah, the One, He has no partners” on one side, and the term “Offa Rex” (Offa Rules) on the other.
There are further engravings declaring ‘Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, Who sent him (Muhammad) with the doctrine and the true faith to prevail over every other religion.’[2]
The coin can be seen at the Numismatic Department of the British Museum, room 68, Exhibit 1, Gold Dinar of Offa. This coin has been the subject of much debate with equal amounts of people standing on both sides of the fence.
Did King Offa become a Muslim?
Is that why he minted this coin?
There are many opinions and debates as to whether or not King Offa did indeed become a Muslim. One undeniable fact is that King Offa would have been aware of the Islamic faith in his day, albeit the doctrine, creed and ethics of Islamic teachings were grossly misrepresented and misunderstood in Western Europe in King Offa’s time. It is this misunderstanding, and Western Europe’s perception of Islam as an “anti-Christian” religion that later allowed for the Crusades to take place. But the advantage King Offa had over the people he ruled is that he would have visited many countries, and one of these is Andalusia, Islamic Spain. Some people, Al-Kalby in particular, are of the opinion that King Offa became astonished by the grandeur of the Muslim civilisation in Spain, and it is possibly here that he came across the true teachings of the Islamic faith.
It is now the common belief of historians that King Offa’s expansionist regime was not inspired by a vision of a United England, but rather by greed and power. It is for this reason, historians believe, that Offa petitioned the Pope to grant him an archbishop for his own kingdom. For allowing him this request, in return he promised 365 Mancus (gold coins) to be paid to the pope every year, one for each day of the year [3].
The pope allowed him his request, and King Offa as promised, continued to pay the amount until his death. Some people have argued that the gold coins were minted not for general circulation in his kingdom, but for a specific purpose. Many believe the purpose of the gold coins was to be paid to the pope as part of the promised 365 Mancus.
However, had this been the case, the Pope, who is seen as an Apostle of God, and a deputy of Christ on Earth, would have been offended had King Offa been paying him with Gold coins bearing the Islamic Doctrine.
Some argue that Offa did not know what the Arabic meant, and saw it as merely adornments and designs. A proof presented for this is the fact that the Arabic contained a few errors in its writing. But surely, the Vatican must have had at least one scholar who was well versed in Arabic, and could have brought the meaning to the Pope’s attention. King Offa, on the other hand, would have had no reason to retain Arabic specialists and so could well have made a mistake in an otherwise intentional inscription of the Islamic creed.
In 775 C.E., one year after minting the coins in question, King Offa took over the region of Kent and annexed it into his Kingdom. The Archbishop of Canterbury accepted King Offa as his overlord and rightful ruler. It is 11 years after this, in 786 C.E., that the Pope sent two representatives to speak to King Offa and work out an agreement to allow him to have his own Archbishop[4].
Those who say that King Offa minted these coins to include in the Mancus as payment to the pope, fail to see that the coins were minted 12 years prior to the arrival of the Pope’s representatives to talk about the agreement for an Archbishop of Mercia.
Another argument as to the coin’s invention is that it may only have been used by pilgrims who visited the Holy Land of Palestine, and that King Offa minted a gold coin similar to the traditions of the Islamic Empire so that it would be more readily accepted.
But the nature of the relationship between King and subject at that time was that the King did not go out of his way to help those he ruled over. Besides, the pilgrims would often trade rather than purchase goods when they travelled.
The fact remains that had King Offa become a Muslim at that time, and if he had publicly declared it, not only would he have lost his throne, but would also have been declared an infidel and killed.
Very little is known of the life of King Offa which is rather peculiar for such a powerful King at that time. This fact has been the basis of the argument from some quarters, claiming that he did in fact convert to Islam, and did not publicly declare his beliefs. Some say that the Church of England in its infancy destroyed all proofs of his conversion [5].
Regardless of whether or not King Offa converted, it is clear that Western Europe knew about Islam in its early days and was impressed with its civilisation.
Whether or not he became a Muslim, King Offa, certainly established the trend of minting gold coins.
He was also the first monarch in Europe to place Arabic inscriptions on gold coins, which was later mimicked by Alfonso VIII of Castile 1158-1214, who had a gold coin minted with an Arabic inscription of the Catholic Christian creed.
It is clear that the Western World has known about the Islamic faith for over a thousand years, contradicting those voices who claim that Islam is new to the West.
A thousand or so years ago those who travelled to the Islamic Empires and came into contact with Muslims were certainly attracted to Islam. There may be differing views as to whether King Offa converted to Islam or not. The gold coin minted by him, declaring there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger, is however, there for all to see.
By Mohsin Ali Akbar
---
[1] D.P. Kirby, The Earliest English Kings, p. 154. Routledge; 2nd edition (November 7, 2000)
[2] Sheikh Abdullah Quilliam, writing as Professor H. M. Léon, M.A., D.C.L., F.S.P., etc. (1916) –
[3] Simon Keynes, “Offa”, in Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 340
[4] Sir Frank M. Stanton – Anglo-Saxon England p.215-216, Oxford paperbacks; 3rd edition (7 June 2001)
[5] http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0037.htm
---
© Al-HIDAYAH MAGAZINE VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1[www.hidayahmag.com].
You are welcome to share this article without changes by any means on the condition that this message is also attached to the article.
Islam has not only been known to the academic elite in the Western world for over a thousand years, but has also been known to the general public throughout history.
Islam found its roots, and became known in England in only its 2nd century (8th century C.E.), for which there is ample proof.
The evidence lies with a King of Middle England, King Offa, about whom, peculiarly, very little is said.
King Offa of Mercia was one of the most powerful and prominent Kings of a large portion of England, before the unity of England in the 10th century.
He ruled Mercia, Middle England, between 757 C.E. (139A.H.) until his death in July 796. (179A.H.)
King Offa ordered the Building of the famous ‘Offa’s Dyke‘, situated on what is now the Welsh border. It was built to fulfil a similar purpose to that of the Great Wall of China; to protect his Kingdom from foreign intrusion.
His dominion was extended from Middle England to Wessex and Northumbria, two large English kingdoms, prominent alongside his own, after his daughters were married to the Kings of those regions.[1]
King Offa made important pacts with Charlemagne, the King of Franks and Emperor of the Romans, and with Pope Adrian the 1st. He remained on good terms with these two powerful personalities until his demise.
One of the most interesting facts about King Offa is that he was the first European Monarch, outside of Byzantium, to mint gold coins. It is a particular gold coin, minted by King Offa in 774 C.E. (157 A.H.) which is of particular interest. It was a copy of a gold Abbasid coin, which bares the declaration of Islamic faith, “There is no god but Allah, the One, He has no partners” on one side, and the term “Offa Rex” (Offa Rules) on the other.
There are further engravings declaring ‘Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, Who sent him (Muhammad) with the doctrine and the true faith to prevail over every other religion.’[2]
The coin can be seen at the Numismatic Department of the British Museum, room 68, Exhibit 1, Gold Dinar of Offa. This coin has been the subject of much debate with equal amounts of people standing on both sides of the fence.
Did King Offa become a Muslim?
Is that why he minted this coin?
There are many opinions and debates as to whether or not King Offa did indeed become a Muslim. One undeniable fact is that King Offa would have been aware of the Islamic faith in his day, albeit the doctrine, creed and ethics of Islamic teachings were grossly misrepresented and misunderstood in Western Europe in King Offa’s time. It is this misunderstanding, and Western Europe’s perception of Islam as an “anti-Christian” religion that later allowed for the Crusades to take place. But the advantage King Offa had over the people he ruled is that he would have visited many countries, and one of these is Andalusia, Islamic Spain. Some people, Al-Kalby in particular, are of the opinion that King Offa became astonished by the grandeur of the Muslim civilisation in Spain, and it is possibly here that he came across the true teachings of the Islamic faith.
It is now the common belief of historians that King Offa’s expansionist regime was not inspired by a vision of a United England, but rather by greed and power. It is for this reason, historians believe, that Offa petitioned the Pope to grant him an archbishop for his own kingdom. For allowing him this request, in return he promised 365 Mancus (gold coins) to be paid to the pope every year, one for each day of the year [3].
The pope allowed him his request, and King Offa as promised, continued to pay the amount until his death. Some people have argued that the gold coins were minted not for general circulation in his kingdom, but for a specific purpose. Many believe the purpose of the gold coins was to be paid to the pope as part of the promised 365 Mancus.
However, had this been the case, the Pope, who is seen as an Apostle of God, and a deputy of Christ on Earth, would have been offended had King Offa been paying him with Gold coins bearing the Islamic Doctrine.
Some argue that Offa did not know what the Arabic meant, and saw it as merely adornments and designs. A proof presented for this is the fact that the Arabic contained a few errors in its writing. But surely, the Vatican must have had at least one scholar who was well versed in Arabic, and could have brought the meaning to the Pope’s attention. King Offa, on the other hand, would have had no reason to retain Arabic specialists and so could well have made a mistake in an otherwise intentional inscription of the Islamic creed.
In 775 C.E., one year after minting the coins in question, King Offa took over the region of Kent and annexed it into his Kingdom. The Archbishop of Canterbury accepted King Offa as his overlord and rightful ruler. It is 11 years after this, in 786 C.E., that the Pope sent two representatives to speak to King Offa and work out an agreement to allow him to have his own Archbishop[4].
Those who say that King Offa minted these coins to include in the Mancus as payment to the pope, fail to see that the coins were minted 12 years prior to the arrival of the Pope’s representatives to talk about the agreement for an Archbishop of Mercia.
Another argument as to the coin’s invention is that it may only have been used by pilgrims who visited the Holy Land of Palestine, and that King Offa minted a gold coin similar to the traditions of the Islamic Empire so that it would be more readily accepted.
But the nature of the relationship between King and subject at that time was that the King did not go out of his way to help those he ruled over. Besides, the pilgrims would often trade rather than purchase goods when they travelled.
The fact remains that had King Offa become a Muslim at that time, and if he had publicly declared it, not only would he have lost his throne, but would also have been declared an infidel and killed.
Very little is known of the life of King Offa which is rather peculiar for such a powerful King at that time. This fact has been the basis of the argument from some quarters, claiming that he did in fact convert to Islam, and did not publicly declare his beliefs. Some say that the Church of England in its infancy destroyed all proofs of his conversion [5].
Regardless of whether or not King Offa converted, it is clear that Western Europe knew about Islam in its early days and was impressed with its civilisation.
Whether or not he became a Muslim, King Offa, certainly established the trend of minting gold coins.
He was also the first monarch in Europe to place Arabic inscriptions on gold coins, which was later mimicked by Alfonso VIII of Castile 1158-1214, who had a gold coin minted with an Arabic inscription of the Catholic Christian creed.
It is clear that the Western World has known about the Islamic faith for over a thousand years, contradicting those voices who claim that Islam is new to the West.
A thousand or so years ago those who travelled to the Islamic Empires and came into contact with Muslims were certainly attracted to Islam. There may be differing views as to whether King Offa converted to Islam or not. The gold coin minted by him, declaring there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger, is however, there for all to see.
By Mohsin Ali Akbar
---
[1] D.P. Kirby, The Earliest English Kings, p. 154. Routledge; 2nd edition (November 7, 2000)
[2] Sheikh Abdullah Quilliam, writing as Professor H. M. Léon, M.A., D.C.L., F.S.P., etc. (1916) –
[3] Simon Keynes, “Offa”, in Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 340
[4] Sir Frank M. Stanton – Anglo-Saxon England p.215-216, Oxford paperbacks; 3rd edition (7 June 2001)
[5] http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0037.htm
---
© Al-HIDAYAH MAGAZINE VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1[www.hidayahmag.com].
You are welcome to share this article without changes by any means on the condition that this message is also attached to the article.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Thursday, 24 March 2011
A Response, From A Malaysian Raqi,To Those Who Question Avoiding Those 'Healers' Who Ask For The Name of Our Mother
"Assalamu'alaikom,
I think we need to nip the bud; as I am getting forwarded emails from different sources.So for those who have references, please provide exact reference here.
The raging questions:
1) In which hadith, which narration does it say that the Prophet wants make dua for a person and he ASK for the patient's name and also his/her MOTHER's name
2) In which fatwa, does it say that it mandatory for a doa to ASK or HAVE the patient's MOTHER's name ?
In my limited knowledge, and this is of course my personal opinion, after few years of research. Those asking for mother's name are seeking the assistance of jinns. So either they are
H1) magicians or
H2) healers seeking assistance from jinns, or
H3) students of H1 or H2 who follows faithfully what their teachers taught them.
In all instances, making magic/sihir is not allowed (or haram); and seeking jinns assistance is not allowed (please refer Surah al-Jinn)
To my best of knowledge, ALLAH is Most Knowing, and therefore does not need the photograph, address, passport number or the names of the patient's parents. In most situation, the patient is already under the nose of the raaqi. And the barakah is in the throat of the person who has recited Quran. And if we refer to many hadiths, there was no mention of the Companions (AS) or the Prophet (SAW) ASKing for the patient's name.
For those who are unable to make doa ruqyah without full personal details of the patient, I believe it is high time you learnt more knowledge about ALLAH.
The above statement may cause discomfort to some people, especially maulanas and amils and other "Islamic healers." But since we are Muslims, we should fall back on Quran and hadith, and of course fatwa from the majority of scholars (jumhur ulama)
Thank you for reading this far."
Bilal Philips' phd thesis was on the subject of "The Exorcist Tradition In Islam" and he conducted a large number of interviews with exorcists from different parts of the Muslims world (some of whom used orthodox methods, others didn't).One of the interviewees, from Egypt, mentioned that he happened to be reading a book entitled Zaad al-Ma'aad by Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah at a time when his son had fallen ill with what psycahiarists, neurologists psychologists and various other speacialists had been unsucessful in treating. Ibn-Al-Qayyim's book contains a description of possession which he said matched those of his son and by following the advice contained therein, he was, by Allah's leave, able to cure his son. Ibn Taymiyyah (who, as you know,was Ibn Qayyim's teacher) also wrote extensively on the subject of jinn possession/affliction.
I think we need to nip the bud; as I am getting forwarded emails from different sources.So for those who have references, please provide exact reference here.
The raging questions:
1) In which hadith, which narration does it say that the Prophet wants make dua for a person and he ASK for the patient's name and also his/her MOTHER's name
2) In which fatwa, does it say that it mandatory for a doa to ASK or HAVE the patient's MOTHER's name ?
In my limited knowledge, and this is of course my personal opinion, after few years of research. Those asking for mother's name are seeking the assistance of jinns. So either they are
H1) magicians or
H2) healers seeking assistance from jinns, or
H3) students of H1 or H2 who follows faithfully what their teachers taught them.
In all instances, making magic/sihir is not allowed (or haram); and seeking jinns assistance is not allowed (please refer Surah al-Jinn)
To my best of knowledge, ALLAH is Most Knowing, and therefore does not need the photograph, address, passport number or the names of the patient's parents. In most situation, the patient is already under the nose of the raaqi. And the barakah is in the throat of the person who has recited Quran. And if we refer to many hadiths, there was no mention of the Companions (AS) or the Prophet (SAW) ASKing for the patient's name.
For those who are unable to make doa ruqyah without full personal details of the patient, I believe it is high time you learnt more knowledge about ALLAH.
The above statement may cause discomfort to some people, especially maulanas and amils and other "Islamic healers." But since we are Muslims, we should fall back on Quran and hadith, and of course fatwa from the majority of scholars (jumhur ulama)
Thank you for reading this far."
Bilal Philips' phd thesis was on the subject of "The Exorcist Tradition In Islam" and he conducted a large number of interviews with exorcists from different parts of the Muslims world (some of whom used orthodox methods, others didn't).One of the interviewees, from Egypt, mentioned that he happened to be reading a book entitled Zaad al-Ma'aad by Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah at a time when his son had fallen ill with what psycahiarists, neurologists psychologists and various other speacialists had been unsucessful in treating. Ibn-Al-Qayyim's book contains a description of possession which he said matched those of his son and by following the advice contained therein, he was, by Allah's leave, able to cure his son. Ibn Taymiyyah (who, as you know,was Ibn Qayyim's teacher) also wrote extensively on the subject of jinn possession/affliction.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Allah says in the Qur'an:"I created mankind and Jinn only in order that they worship me"
The ancient Jewish prayer, whilst obviously not identical to the Muslim prayer (known in Arabic as salat and in Persian based languages as namaz) does have some remarkable similarities. Given that the Quran is the last revealed revelation of God to humanity,which was sent to confirm some of that contained in God's previous revelations, the Torah and the Gospel (known in Arabic as Taurat and Injeel respectively) it is hardly surprising that one would be able to find such parallels. Another interesting example of such similarities lies in the prohibituion on usury which is mentioned in all of the revealed texts.
The Ancient Jewish Prayer:
and two examples of the Muslim Prayer:
The Ancient Jewish Prayer:
and two examples of the Muslim Prayer:
Monday, 7 March 2011
Ethiopian Youth Sending Praise on Prophet Muhammed (salla Allahu alehi wa salam)
"Allahumma Salli ala Muhammadan (Oh, Allah bless prophet Muhammed...RasulAllah (messenger of Allah)"
"Ya Sayidi" Qasida (lyric poem)
From Wikipedia: Qasida (also spelled qasidah), in Arabic: قصيدة, plural qasā'id, قــصــائـد; in Persian: قصیده (or چكامه, chakameh), is a form of lyric poetry that originated in pre-Islamic Arabia. Well known qasā'id include the Qasida Burda ("Poem of the Mantle") by Imam al-Busiri and Ibn Arabi's classic collection "The Interpreter of Desires".
The classic form of qasida maintains a single elaborate meter throughout the poem, and every line rhymes. It typically runs more than 50 lines, and sometimes more than 100. It was adopted by Persian poets, where it developed to be sometimes longer than 100 lines.
The classic form of qasida maintains a single elaborate meter throughout the poem, and every line rhymes. It typically runs more than 50 lines, and sometimes more than 100. It was adopted by Persian poets, where it developed to be sometimes longer than 100 lines.
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Qasida
The Dala'il ul-Khayrat is a poem written by Imam Muhammad ibn Sulayman Al-Jazuli who died in 1465.
"La illaha ila Allah" means "no deity but Allah".
"La illaha ila Allah" means "no deity but Allah".
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Saad Iqbal Madni
Saad Iqbal Madni, a renowned recitor of the Quran from Pakistan was visiting Indonesia when he was kidnapped by the Americans. He was shackled and bundled onto a plane and moved from one location to another before spending five years at Guantanamo Bay on entirely false grounds.
From Indonesia, he passed through the British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia before being renditioned to Egypt where he was refused medical treatment and was torured.
He reports that he was tortured by Egyptian interrogators in the employ of the Americans and that Mubarak's son, Gamal was involved. Gamal Mubarak, incidentally, is still at large.
From there, he was moved to Bagram airbase, Afghanistan where he spent a year and where "he was hung from the ceiling with his feet barely touching the ground for long periods".
Thereafter, he was moved to Guantanamo where he was to spend the next five years wrongfully imprisoned.
In the light of the human rights abuses on their own territory,it is completely unconscionable that the proposed American humanitarian mission in Libya has anything to do with concern for the plight of Libyans.It is, as with Iraq rather more about expansionism and the liberation of, er, oil.
From Indonesia, he passed through the British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia before being renditioned to Egypt where he was refused medical treatment and was torured.
He reports that he was tortured by Egyptian interrogators in the employ of the Americans and that Mubarak's son, Gamal was involved. Gamal Mubarak, incidentally, is still at large.
From there, he was moved to Bagram airbase, Afghanistan where he spent a year and where "he was hung from the ceiling with his feet barely touching the ground for long periods".
Thereafter, he was moved to Guantanamo where he was to spend the next five years wrongfully imprisoned.
In the light of the human rights abuses on their own territory,it is completely unconscionable that the proposed American humanitarian mission in Libya has anything to do with concern for the plight of Libyans.It is, as with Iraq rather more about expansionism and the liberation of, er, oil.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
">Monday, 28 February 2011
From The Guardian: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: The new face of Libyan defiance by Jamie Doward
Colonel Gaddafi's son was educated in London and has friends in the City and Westminster. Or he did until last week.
Geneva places a high premium on guarding secrets, but rumours are a different currency. Amid momentous scenes being played out across the Middle East last week, sources in the Swiss financial centre were privately gossiping about a visit to Geneva earlier this year by Farhat Bengdara, the governor of the Central Bank of Libya.
According to one popular rumour, Bengdara had visited Geneva with a purpose. He was there to make changes to key Swiss accounts, into which flow hundreds of millions of dollars of Libyan oil money that are then allocated to the Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Central Bank.
Financiers in Geneva gossip that, as far back as 17 January, Bengdara established that four new names would be added as signatories on three crucial accounts controlling much of the money. The signatories were Colonel Muammar Gaddafi; his son Khamis, who heads Libya's infamous martyrs' battalion; the Libyan leader's daughter Aisha; and his son Saif al-Islam.
Where Libya's petro-dollars may have been channelled in the weeks since tensions first erupted across the Arab world is hard to say. But those who know him would be surprised if Saif did not hold the answers.
The westernised 38-year-old, who studied at the London School of Economics and enjoys close friendships with senior British politicians and financiers, has become the focal point of the conflict now threatening to rip Libya apart.
Whereas Gaddafi senior has always been seen in the west as a dictator – albeit one brought back into the fold – Saif, a trained architect who established a medical charity and was considered his father's heir apparent, held out the promise of a new dawn.
As far back as 2002, Saif told an interviewer that Libya needed democracy. "It's policy number one for us. First thing democracy, second thing democracy, third thing democracy," Saif said, using a rhetorical technique he was to repeat last week to far more sinister effect.
With mercenaries flooding the streets of Libya's major cities and horrifying stories of murder and mayhem emerging in piecemeal fashion via social networking sites, despite a government-enforced news blackout, such a promise now looks spent.
Saif's desire to act as a mouthpiece for his father has lent the tragic scenes unfolding in Libya a surreal, sometimes ridiculous dimension. His appearances in front of the television cameras suggest a man increasingly unhinged. Arms folded, jaw firmly out, Saif is a manifestation of defiance. It is clear he is very much his father's son, albeit, as one Twitter user wryly observed, someone who seems to have styled himself sartorially on Stringer Bell, the drug lord in the US cop show The Wire.
The similarities may not stop there. A man who reportedly likes to keep tigers and falcons, "Saif is urbane, charming and psychotic", according to one person who has met him. This appraisal seemed to be confirmed last Sunday night when Saif appeared on domestic television to threaten a civil war in which his father's regime "will fight to the last minute, until the last bullet".
By Thursday he was on CNN promising that the violence in his country would make Libya "stronger, more united". Saif pledged: "Libya will have a better future as one united nation. [We will] not let a bunch of terrorists control our country and our future."
Displaying a hubris that is likely to be replayed in video clips for years to come, Saif boasted that his family had a "Plan A, Plan B and Plan C". But all of the plans, it transpired, were the same: "To live and die in Libya."
These were the fulminations of a man whose options were increasingly limited. It was a far cry from 2008 when, having collected his doctorate from the LSE, Saif pledged to donate £1.5m to the university for a global governance unit. "I've come to know Saif as someone who looks to democracy, civil society and deep liberal values for the core of his inspiration," Professor David Held, a political theorist at the LSE, said at the time.
Last week, while the university was reconsidering its links to Saif as a "matter of urgency", Held too was reappraising his former pupil. "My support for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was always conditional on him resolving the dilemma that he faced in a progressive and democratic direction," Held said. "His commitment to transforming his country has been overwhelmed by the crisis he finds himself in. He tragically, but fatefully, made the wrong judgment."
Whether others, however, will be quick to break their ties remains to be seen. Saif's connections extend into the City of London and Westminster.
Saif is an acquaintance of Lord Mandelson and met the former Labour minister at a Corfu villa the week before it was announced that the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, would be released from a Scottish prison. The two men met again when they were guests at Lord Rothschild's mansion in Buckinghamshire.
Rothschild's son and heir, Nat, also a close friend of Mandelson, held a party in New York attended by Saif in 2008. Saif in turn invited Nat Rothschild to his 37th birthday party in Montenegro, where the financier is investing in a luxury resort.
Prince Andrew, too, has played host to Saif at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and the two men have also met in Tripoli. Others whom Saif classes as good friends include Tony Blair and, bizarrely, the late Austrian far-right leader, Jörg Haider.
On Friday night, at the end of a week in which hundreds are believed to have died and Saif's credibility in the west evaporated, the man whose name means "Sword of Islam" in Arabic appeared delusional. "Everything is calm," Saif told a group of foreign journalists who had been invited to the Libyan capital.
"If you hear fireworks, don't mistake it for shooting," Saif added, smiling as he greeted the press outside a luxury hotel boasting a glittering lobby and chandeliers. But the calm was unnatural. It was the quiet of empty streets that would normally be bustling on a Friday night.
Saif insisted that much of the reporting was "lies" spread by a hostile media and denied claims his father's forces had bombed civilians. "We are laughing at these reports," he said, urging reporters to interview "hundreds or thousands" of people for themselves.
"The biggest problem is the hostile media campaigns against us. They want to show Libya is burning, that there is a big revolution here," he said. "You are wrong. We are united. Peace is coming back to our country."
A few miles away the thousands of desperate migrant workers besieging Tripoli airport, kept out by police using batons and whips, told a different story.
Geneva places a high premium on guarding secrets, but rumours are a different currency. Amid momentous scenes being played out across the Middle East last week, sources in the Swiss financial centre were privately gossiping about a visit to Geneva earlier this year by Farhat Bengdara, the governor of the Central Bank of Libya.
According to one popular rumour, Bengdara had visited Geneva with a purpose. He was there to make changes to key Swiss accounts, into which flow hundreds of millions of dollars of Libyan oil money that are then allocated to the Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Central Bank.
Financiers in Geneva gossip that, as far back as 17 January, Bengdara established that four new names would be added as signatories on three crucial accounts controlling much of the money. The signatories were Colonel Muammar Gaddafi; his son Khamis, who heads Libya's infamous martyrs' battalion; the Libyan leader's daughter Aisha; and his son Saif al-Islam.
Where Libya's petro-dollars may have been channelled in the weeks since tensions first erupted across the Arab world is hard to say. But those who know him would be surprised if Saif did not hold the answers.
The westernised 38-year-old, who studied at the London School of Economics and enjoys close friendships with senior British politicians and financiers, has become the focal point of the conflict now threatening to rip Libya apart.
Whereas Gaddafi senior has always been seen in the west as a dictator – albeit one brought back into the fold – Saif, a trained architect who established a medical charity and was considered his father's heir apparent, held out the promise of a new dawn.
As far back as 2002, Saif told an interviewer that Libya needed democracy. "It's policy number one for us. First thing democracy, second thing democracy, third thing democracy," Saif said, using a rhetorical technique he was to repeat last week to far more sinister effect.
With mercenaries flooding the streets of Libya's major cities and horrifying stories of murder and mayhem emerging in piecemeal fashion via social networking sites, despite a government-enforced news blackout, such a promise now looks spent.
Saif's desire to act as a mouthpiece for his father has lent the tragic scenes unfolding in Libya a surreal, sometimes ridiculous dimension. His appearances in front of the television cameras suggest a man increasingly unhinged. Arms folded, jaw firmly out, Saif is a manifestation of defiance. It is clear he is very much his father's son, albeit, as one Twitter user wryly observed, someone who seems to have styled himself sartorially on Stringer Bell, the drug lord in the US cop show The Wire.
The similarities may not stop there. A man who reportedly likes to keep tigers and falcons, "Saif is urbane, charming and psychotic", according to one person who has met him. This appraisal seemed to be confirmed last Sunday night when Saif appeared on domestic television to threaten a civil war in which his father's regime "will fight to the last minute, until the last bullet".
By Thursday he was on CNN promising that the violence in his country would make Libya "stronger, more united". Saif pledged: "Libya will have a better future as one united nation. [We will] not let a bunch of terrorists control our country and our future."
Displaying a hubris that is likely to be replayed in video clips for years to come, Saif boasted that his family had a "Plan A, Plan B and Plan C". But all of the plans, it transpired, were the same: "To live and die in Libya."
These were the fulminations of a man whose options were increasingly limited. It was a far cry from 2008 when, having collected his doctorate from the LSE, Saif pledged to donate £1.5m to the university for a global governance unit. "I've come to know Saif as someone who looks to democracy, civil society and deep liberal values for the core of his inspiration," Professor David Held, a political theorist at the LSE, said at the time.
Last week, while the university was reconsidering its links to Saif as a "matter of urgency", Held too was reappraising his former pupil. "My support for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was always conditional on him resolving the dilemma that he faced in a progressive and democratic direction," Held said. "His commitment to transforming his country has been overwhelmed by the crisis he finds himself in. He tragically, but fatefully, made the wrong judgment."
Whether others, however, will be quick to break their ties remains to be seen. Saif's connections extend into the City of London and Westminster.
Saif is an acquaintance of Lord Mandelson and met the former Labour minister at a Corfu villa the week before it was announced that the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, would be released from a Scottish prison. The two men met again when they were guests at Lord Rothschild's mansion in Buckinghamshire.
Rothschild's son and heir, Nat, also a close friend of Mandelson, held a party in New York attended by Saif in 2008. Saif in turn invited Nat Rothschild to his 37th birthday party in Montenegro, where the financier is investing in a luxury resort.
Prince Andrew, too, has played host to Saif at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and the two men have also met in Tripoli. Others whom Saif classes as good friends include Tony Blair and, bizarrely, the late Austrian far-right leader, Jörg Haider.
On Friday night, at the end of a week in which hundreds are believed to have died and Saif's credibility in the west evaporated, the man whose name means "Sword of Islam" in Arabic appeared delusional. "Everything is calm," Saif told a group of foreign journalists who had been invited to the Libyan capital.
"If you hear fireworks, don't mistake it for shooting," Saif added, smiling as he greeted the press outside a luxury hotel boasting a glittering lobby and chandeliers. But the calm was unnatural. It was the quiet of empty streets that would normally be bustling on a Friday night.
Saif insisted that much of the reporting was "lies" spread by a hostile media and denied claims his father's forces had bombed civilians. "We are laughing at these reports," he said, urging reporters to interview "hundreds or thousands" of people for themselves.
"The biggest problem is the hostile media campaigns against us. They want to show Libya is burning, that there is a big revolution here," he said. "You are wrong. We are united. Peace is coming back to our country."
A few miles away the thousands of desperate migrant workers besieging Tripoli airport, kept out by police using batons and whips, told a different story.
Pro-Mubarak Supporters Were, At Least in Part,Released Prisoners
This is a transcript, provided by Twitter user @Elazul of a video which was posted by an Egyptian Facebook user identifying himself as Eng Amen. The video features the interrogation of pro-Mubarak supporters who were captured during the recent uprising in Egypt.
Questioner: "You son, you the one rolling around on his right side, who let you escape from prison?"
Man #1: [indecipherable]
Questioner: "What? Raise your voice!"
Voice off camera: "I will confess everything."
Man #1: "Why don't you talk to Youssef, sir."
Questioner: "What happened?"
Man #2: "What happened is that all the police, the inspectors and the police controlling the prison themselves, they dressed in civilian clothes, I swear, and they got weapons and they destroyed the prison doors and the prison themselves, and they let us out."
Questioner: "Which prison are you from?"
Man #2: "440."
Man #3: "I'm from 430."
Questioner: "Wadi Natroun Prison?"
Man #2: "Yes."
Man #2: "Sir, they hit us with tear gas. They said whoever doesn't leave they will kill i swear. We were dying by the [indecipherable]."
Questioner: "Enough, enough, enough."
Questioner: "So you came from Hadaye El Obba?
Questioner: "You son, you the one rolling around on his right side, who let you escape from prison?"
Man #1: [indecipherable]
Questioner: "What? Raise your voice!"
Voice off camera: "I will confess everything."
Man #1: "Why don't you talk to Youssef, sir."
Questioner: "What happened?"
Man #2: "What happened is that all the police, the inspectors and the police controlling the prison themselves, they dressed in civilian clothes, I swear, and they got weapons and they destroyed the prison doors and the prison themselves, and they let us out."
Questioner: "Which prison are you from?"
Man #2: "440."
Man #3: "I'm from 430."
Questioner: "Wadi Natroun Prison?"
Man #2: "Yes."
Man #2: "Sir, they hit us with tear gas. They said whoever doesn't leave they will kill i swear. We were dying by the [indecipherable]."
Questioner: "Enough, enough, enough."
Questioner: "So you came from Hadaye El Obba?
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Thursday, 24 February 2011
From the BBC News Website: Who's Propping up Gadaffi? by Frank Gardner
Unlike in Egypt or Tunisia, it is not the conventional military that holds the balance of power in Libya.
Instead, it is a murky network of paramilitary brigades, "revolutionary committees" of trusted followers, tribal leaders and imported foreign mercenaries.
The actual Libyan Army is almost symbolic, a weakened and emaciated force of little more than 40,000, poorly armed and poorly trained. It is part of Col Muammar Gaddafi's long-term strategy to eliminate the risk of a military coup, which is how he himself came to power in 1969.
So the defection this month of some elements of the army to the protesters in Benghazi is unlikely to trouble Col Gaddafi. Not only can he do without them, his security apparatus has not hesitated to call in air strikes on their barracks in the rebellious east of the country.
So, who is propping up his regime and allowing it to stay in power while two of its neighbouring leaders have fled amid a massive momentum for regime change throughout the Middle East?
Internal Security
Like many countries in the region, Libya has an extensive, well-resourced and brutal internal security apparatus.
Col Gaddafi is usually flanked by his personal guards when he appears in public Think East Germany's Stasi or Romania's Securitate pre-1989, where no-one dared criticise the regime in public in case they were reported to the feared secret police, and you can see the similarities.
During my own visits to Libya I have always found it hard to get ordinary people to speak freely on the record to a journalist, as government "minders" are always watching and noting who says what.
Some of Col Gaddafi's own sons have worked in internal security but today, the key figure in Libya's security apparatus, both internal and external, is Gaddafi's brother-in-law, Abdullah Senussi.
A hardliner with a thuggish reputation, he is strongly suspected of being the driving force behind the violent suppression of protests, notably in Benghazi and the east of the country.
As long as he keeps advising Gaddafi to tough it out there is little chance of his stepping down.
The Paramilitaries
Libya has a number of "special brigades" answerable not to the army but to Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees.
One of these is believed to be commanded, at least nominally, by one of Col Gaddafi's maverick sons, Hannibal, who clashed recently with Swiss police in Geneva after allegations he abused hotel maids there.
The paramilitaries, sometimes known as the "People's Militia", have so far been largely loyal to Col Gaddafi and his close circle known in Arabic as Ahl al-Khaimah - "People of the Tent".
If the paramilitaries changed sides and joined the protesters en masse this would seriously undermine Col Gaddafi's ability to survive.
The Mercenaries
This has been one of the darker and particularly disturbing facets of the Libyan uprising.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Libya-watchers are now speculating whether Col Gaddafi's regime will carry out its own self-fulfilling prophecy of civil war ”
End Quote There are persistent reports that Col Gaddafi's regime has been making extensive use of hired African mercenaries, mostly from the Sahel countries of Chad and Niger, to carry out atrocities against unarmed civilian protesters.
Libyan witnesses say they have been firing from rooftops into crowds of demonstrators, in essence carrying out the orders that many Libyan soldiers have refused to obey.
Col Gaddafi has long fostered close relations with African countries, having turned his back on the Arab world some time ago, and there are an estimated 500,000 African expatriates in Libya out of a total population of six million.
The number of those serving as pro-Gaddafi mercenaries is thought to be quite small but their loyalty to his regime is said to be unquestioned and there are reports of extra flights being laid on to bring in more in recent days.
The Tribes
Libya, like the other Arab revolutionary republics of Yemen and Iraq, is a country where your tribe can help define your loyalties, but in recent years the tribal distinctions have blurred and the country is less tribal now than it was in 1969.
Continue reading the main story
Do Libya's tribal ties matter?
Col Gaddafi himself comes from the Qadhaththa tribe. During his 41 years in power he has appointed many of its members to key positions in his regime, including those for his personal safety.
Just as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq and President Saleh has in Yemen, Col Gaddafi has been adept at playing off one tribe against another, ensuring that no one leader risks posing a threat to his regime.
Libya-watchers are now speculating whether Col Gaddafi's regime will carry out its own self-fulfilling prophecy of civil war and deliberately arm the tribes loyal to the regime to put down the protest that has already seen it lose the eastern half of the country.
Instead, it is a murky network of paramilitary brigades, "revolutionary committees" of trusted followers, tribal leaders and imported foreign mercenaries.
The actual Libyan Army is almost symbolic, a weakened and emaciated force of little more than 40,000, poorly armed and poorly trained. It is part of Col Muammar Gaddafi's long-term strategy to eliminate the risk of a military coup, which is how he himself came to power in 1969.
So the defection this month of some elements of the army to the protesters in Benghazi is unlikely to trouble Col Gaddafi. Not only can he do without them, his security apparatus has not hesitated to call in air strikes on their barracks in the rebellious east of the country.
So, who is propping up his regime and allowing it to stay in power while two of its neighbouring leaders have fled amid a massive momentum for regime change throughout the Middle East?
Internal Security
Like many countries in the region, Libya has an extensive, well-resourced and brutal internal security apparatus.
Col Gaddafi is usually flanked by his personal guards when he appears in public Think East Germany's Stasi or Romania's Securitate pre-1989, where no-one dared criticise the regime in public in case they were reported to the feared secret police, and you can see the similarities.
During my own visits to Libya I have always found it hard to get ordinary people to speak freely on the record to a journalist, as government "minders" are always watching and noting who says what.
Some of Col Gaddafi's own sons have worked in internal security but today, the key figure in Libya's security apparatus, both internal and external, is Gaddafi's brother-in-law, Abdullah Senussi.
A hardliner with a thuggish reputation, he is strongly suspected of being the driving force behind the violent suppression of protests, notably in Benghazi and the east of the country.
As long as he keeps advising Gaddafi to tough it out there is little chance of his stepping down.
The Paramilitaries
Libya has a number of "special brigades" answerable not to the army but to Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees.
One of these is believed to be commanded, at least nominally, by one of Col Gaddafi's maverick sons, Hannibal, who clashed recently with Swiss police in Geneva after allegations he abused hotel maids there.
The paramilitaries, sometimes known as the "People's Militia", have so far been largely loyal to Col Gaddafi and his close circle known in Arabic as Ahl al-Khaimah - "People of the Tent".
If the paramilitaries changed sides and joined the protesters en masse this would seriously undermine Col Gaddafi's ability to survive.
The Mercenaries
This has been one of the darker and particularly disturbing facets of the Libyan uprising.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Libya-watchers are now speculating whether Col Gaddafi's regime will carry out its own self-fulfilling prophecy of civil war ”
End Quote There are persistent reports that Col Gaddafi's regime has been making extensive use of hired African mercenaries, mostly from the Sahel countries of Chad and Niger, to carry out atrocities against unarmed civilian protesters.
Libyan witnesses say they have been firing from rooftops into crowds of demonstrators, in essence carrying out the orders that many Libyan soldiers have refused to obey.
Col Gaddafi has long fostered close relations with African countries, having turned his back on the Arab world some time ago, and there are an estimated 500,000 African expatriates in Libya out of a total population of six million.
The number of those serving as pro-Gaddafi mercenaries is thought to be quite small but their loyalty to his regime is said to be unquestioned and there are reports of extra flights being laid on to bring in more in recent days.
The Tribes
Libya, like the other Arab revolutionary republics of Yemen and Iraq, is a country where your tribe can help define your loyalties, but in recent years the tribal distinctions have blurred and the country is less tribal now than it was in 1969.
Continue reading the main story
Do Libya's tribal ties matter?
Col Gaddafi himself comes from the Qadhaththa tribe. During his 41 years in power he has appointed many of its members to key positions in his regime, including those for his personal safety.
Just as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq and President Saleh has in Yemen, Col Gaddafi has been adept at playing off one tribe against another, ensuring that no one leader risks posing a threat to his regime.
Libya-watchers are now speculating whether Col Gaddafi's regime will carry out its own self-fulfilling prophecy of civil war and deliberately arm the tribes loyal to the regime to put down the protest that has already seen it lose the eastern half of the country.
The Fall of Benghazi
The northern Libyan city of Benghazi is the beginning and crux of the revolt against Col Muammar Gaddafi.
"When local people there came out to protest last week, they were fired on from a huge army base in the centre of the city with heavy artillery, including anti-aircraft guns.
In response, they simply took on the army, with homemade petrol bombs.
They loaded construction site vehicles with petrol and rammed them against the walls of the barracks, and ground down the troops inside.
After two or three days of bitter fighting - with the aid of some defection from the government side - they took the base, defeating some of the country's most elite forces."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12573890
"When local people there came out to protest last week, they were fired on from a huge army base in the centre of the city with heavy artillery, including anti-aircraft guns.
In response, they simply took on the army, with homemade petrol bombs.
They loaded construction site vehicles with petrol and rammed them against the walls of the barracks, and ground down the troops inside.
After two or three days of bitter fighting - with the aid of some defection from the government side - they took the base, defeating some of the country's most elite forces."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12573890
Muammar Gaddafi:method in his 'madness' by Brian Whitaker, Comment is Free
"People of Libya!" the broadcast began, "In response to your own will, fulfilling your most heartfelt wishes, answering your incessant demands for change and regeneration ... your armed forces have undertaken the overthrow of the reactionary and corrupt regime, the stench of which has sickened and horrified us all. At a single blow your gallant army has toppled these idols and has destroyed their images ... From this day forward, Libya is a free, self-governing republic."
It was 1 September 1969, and the young army captain seated at the microphone to announce the coup was Muammar Gaddafi – then only 27 and a fervent admirer of the Nasserist revolution in neighbouring Egypt. Yesterday, he was again broadcasting to the nation and this time the tables were turned. It is no longer the "decadent regime" of King Idris under attack, but that of Gaddafi himself.
In the four decades since he came to power, Gaddafi's behaviour has shocked and amused the world in roughly equal measures – from his bizarre sense of fashion to his appearance on Monday leaning out of something resembling a popemobile and holding a white umbrella. As a Jordanian psychiatrist once told me while we watched Gaddafi's televised performance at an Arab summit: "I meet people like him every day in my hospital."
But mad as they may seem, his actions usually have some kind of logic, even if it's a logic that others, not attuned to the Gaddafi way of thinking, fail to recognise. When he drove through Africa throwing money out of his car window, he was making a serious point: foreign aid is often misused or ends up in the wrong hands, so why not just let ordinary people pick it up off the street?
It was the same on Monday with the popemobile episode. In answer to claims that he had fled the country, he posed for the cameras outside a building that every Libyan would recognise – his former home in Tripoli (the one the Americans bombed in 1986, killing his daughter).
He was back at the bombed-out house on Tuesday, suitably dressed in khaki and declaring himself "a fighter". It was an angry, defiant speech – and mercifully short by Gaddafi's standards, lasting only an hour or so. It was also, in a strangely malevolent way, an honest speech. Gaddafi let rip, talking of "honour" and expressing all the feelings that Ben Ali and Mubarak would probably like to have expressed in their last presidential broadcasts, if only they hadn't been wearing a suit and tie and trying to look dignified.
Gaddafi, of course, doesn't see himself in the Mubarak/Ben Ali mould. He doesn't see the uprising as a mass rebellion against his leadership but as a flare-up of old tribal rivalries – a reactionary movement bent on destroying the revolutionary spirit of the world's first and only people's jamahiriya.
These rivalries are a constant undercurrent of Gaddafi's rule but have usually been played out in the mosques and football stadiums rather than on the streets. Just over 10 years ago, for example, shortly after Gaddafi's football-mad son, Saadi, became captain of the Tripoli team, the city of Benghazi – long regarded as a centre of opposition to the regime – suffered a series of humiliating defeats on the pitch.
In one match, in the summer of 2000, Benghazi was leading 1-0 at half-time, but in the second half the referee dutifully awarded two penalties to Tripoli along with an offside goal. The Benghazi players walked off in protest but Saadi's guards ordered them back and the match ended with a 3-1 victory to Tripoli.
Shortly afterwards, Benghazi played al-Baydah (the home town of Saadi's mother). Following another suspect penalty, Benghazi fans invaded the pitch and the game was abandoned. Arriving back in Benghazi, the fans set fire to the local headquarters of the Libyan Football Federation (chaired, of course, by Saadi) and the authorities retaliated by dissolving the Benghazi club and demolishing its premises.
Given the history, it's not surprising if Gaddafi sees the current insubordination as more of the same (though on a much more serious scale) and, moving on from bogus penalties, is determined to suppress it with whatever force may be necessary to preserve the "historic march" of his revolution.
One of the key points in Tuesday's speech, emphasised by its symbolic setting, was that his regime had withstood bombing "by 170 aircraft under the leadership of nuclear countries like America, Britain and Nato" – implying that where they failed local rebels cannot succeed.
He also explained why – unlike Ben Ali and Mubarak – he cannot resign. Technically, this is correct since Libya has no president. Gaddafi constantly asserts that he is just an ordinary Libyan citizen (though of course very little happens without his approval). His title, "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution", is not a public office but a description of his historical role. Thus, it can never be taken away from him or bestowed on anyone else.
But Gaddafi does have one very important thing in common with Ben Ali and Mubarak. By continuing to bask in the glories of 1969, he has lost touch with his people. Most Libyans alive today have no recollection of King Idris or the revolution that overthrew him. For them, it's part of Libya's past. But not part of its future.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Full Length and Excerpted Articles on The Situation in Libya
Sins of the father, sins of the son
Wikipedia image showing Ghaddaffi and Yugoslav president Josep Broz Tito, in 1975
"Ever since his ascension to power, through a military coup, in 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has used every piece of revolutionary rhetoric in the book to justify his actions, which include consolidating power in the hands of his relatives and close associates and creating a network of security forces and militias to coerce Libyans into conforming to the whims of his cruel regime.
Through his support for revolutionary movements in different parts of the world - ones, of course, which did not endanger his own rule - he has sought to portray himself as the 'defender of the oppressed', earning the wrath of the West in the process. But the people now courageously defying his regime's savage suppression are sending the message that anti-Western slogans, even if occasionally backed up by support for just causes, can no longer sustain oppressive regimes in the region.
Ghaddaffi with Serbian president,Boris Tadic (image from Wikipedia)
A new era is underway in which leaders will be judged on their ability to represent the aspirations of the people and in which they will be held accountable for their actions. Issuing rallying cries against a foreign enemy, even when that enemy is very real, while inflicting injustice on one's own people will no longer be permitted.
Post-colonial Arab regimes, including those that rode the waves of or even at one point genuinely represented anti-colonial resistance, have had to resort to a reliance on secret police and draconian laws to subordinate their subjects. The lesson is clear: Without a representative democracy, Arab republics have metamorphosed into ugly hereditary dynasties that treat their countries like their own private companies.
While trampling over the interests of his own people, Gaddafi has modeled himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause, reverting to the most fiery verbal attacks on Israel. But this is a recurring theme in a region where leaders must pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in order to give their regime the stamp of 'legitimacy'. Gaddafi's 'support', however, did not prevent him from deporting Palestinians living in Libya, leaving them stranded in the dessert, when he sought to "punish the Palestinian leadership" for negotiating with Israel.
image from BBC
But even more cynical than his "pro-Palestinian" stand is his exploitation of the plight of the African people by anointing himself the leader of the continent. It is tragic, if reports prove to be true, that he used migrant sub-Saharan African labourers against the Libyan protesters. But it is, sadly, very believable that a ruthless dictator, driven hysterical by the prospect of losing his wealth and power, might pit the poor and marginalised against the poor and oppressed."
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201122271939751816.html
"Ever since his ascension to power, through a military coup, in 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has used every piece of revolutionary rhetoric in the book to justify his actions, which include consolidating power in the hands of his relatives and close associates and creating a network of security forces and militias to coerce Libyans into conforming to the whims of his cruel regime.
Through his support for revolutionary movements in different parts of the world - ones, of course, which did not endanger his own rule - he has sought to portray himself as the 'defender of the oppressed', earning the wrath of the West in the process. But the people now courageously defying his regime's savage suppression are sending the message that anti-Western slogans, even if occasionally backed up by support for just causes, can no longer sustain oppressive regimes in the region.
A new era is underway in which leaders will be judged on their ability to represent the aspirations of the people and in which they will be held accountable for their actions. Issuing rallying cries against a foreign enemy, even when that enemy is very real, while inflicting injustice on one's own people will no longer be permitted.
Post-colonial Arab regimes, including those that rode the waves of or even at one point genuinely represented anti-colonial resistance, have had to resort to a reliance on secret police and draconian laws to subordinate their subjects. The lesson is clear: Without a representative democracy, Arab republics have metamorphosed into ugly hereditary dynasties that treat their countries like their own private companies.
While trampling over the interests of his own people, Gaddafi has modeled himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause, reverting to the most fiery verbal attacks on Israel. But this is a recurring theme in a region where leaders must pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in order to give their regime the stamp of 'legitimacy'. Gaddafi's 'support', however, did not prevent him from deporting Palestinians living in Libya, leaving them stranded in the dessert, when he sought to "punish the Palestinian leadership" for negotiating with Israel.
But even more cynical than his "pro-Palestinian" stand is his exploitation of the plight of the African people by anointing himself the leader of the continent. It is tragic, if reports prove to be true, that he used migrant sub-Saharan African labourers against the Libyan protesters. But it is, sadly, very believable that a ruthless dictator, driven hysterical by the prospect of losing his wealth and power, might pit the poor and marginalised against the poor and oppressed."
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201122271939751816.html
Monday, 21 February 2011
The Colonels
Abu Musa al-Ash'ari said, "I visited the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, with two of my cousins. One of them said, 'Messenger of Allah, give us authority over some of what Allah, the Mighty and Exalted, has appointed you over.' The other said something similar. He said, 'By Allah, we will not appoint anyone over this matter who asks for it nor anyone who is eager for it." [Agreed upon]
Colonel Ghaddaffi's eagerly awaited speech, which Libyans were no doubt hoping would herald his departure,was short and given in his usually inimitable style. This time, rather appropriately given his Leninist inspired ideals, he was in a Soviet era looking van and was holding aloft a huge umbrella. He told of how he wasn't in Venezuela, but in Libya, and that he'd been talking to youth in Green Square.
Clearly, he was trying to present himself as a kindly "grandfather of the nation" figure and the uprising (for which mosques throughout Libya have been broadcasting the call, "Come for Jihad")as nothing more than a falling out and nothing that a chat with the youth down on Green Square couldn't sort out.
And in other news:
The use, by the government of Bahrain, of foreign citizens (mainly Jordanian and Pakistani) to oppress Bahrainis is not just limited to the armed forces. It appears that the torture of Bahraini's was, at one point, overseen by a British policeman by the name of Colonel Ian Henderson AKA The Butcher of Bahrain.
This wouldn't have escaped government attention- the contined good relations between the UK and Bahrain, in spite of clear evidence of the Khalifa families use of torture, certainly makes the "humanitarian" mission in Afghanistan sound all the more ridiculous.
Colonel Ghaddaffi's eagerly awaited speech, which Libyans were no doubt hoping would herald his departure,was short and given in his usually inimitable style. This time, rather appropriately given his Leninist inspired ideals, he was in a Soviet era looking van and was holding aloft a huge umbrella. He told of how he wasn't in Venezuela, but in Libya, and that he'd been talking to youth in Green Square.
Clearly, he was trying to present himself as a kindly "grandfather of the nation" figure and the uprising (for which mosques throughout Libya have been broadcasting the call, "Come for Jihad")as nothing more than a falling out and nothing that a chat with the youth down on Green Square couldn't sort out.
And in other news:
The use, by the government of Bahrain, of foreign citizens (mainly Jordanian and Pakistani) to oppress Bahrainis is not just limited to the armed forces. It appears that the torture of Bahraini's was, at one point, overseen by a British policeman by the name of Colonel Ian Henderson AKA The Butcher of Bahrain.
This wouldn't have escaped government attention- the contined good relations between the UK and Bahrain, in spite of clear evidence of the Khalifa families use of torture, certainly makes the "humanitarian" mission in Afghanistan sound all the more ridiculous.
"Israel Has a Phd in Deception"
Interestingly, this Imran Hossein lecture was given in 2003- some time before the Israeli invasions of both Gaza and southern Lebanon- and, in it, he suggests that Israel is planning wars of aggression which will be presented as self-defence.
[Message From Libya] TELL THE WORLD WHAT IS HAPPENING TO US!!!!!
Libyan man lamenting lack of pressure placed on Ghaddaffi by the international "community". Poor sound quality
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Quran Recitation by A Sudanese Qari
Part of Surah Anfal, Eighth Chapter of the Holy Quran, recited by Imam az-Zain,an imam of a mosque in Khartoum:
Friday, 18 February 2011
Tala Al Badru Alayna
From wikipedia:
Tala‘ al-Badru ‘Alaynā (Arabic: طلع البدر علينا) is a traditional Islamic song (Nasheed) that the Ansar sung to the Prophet Muhammad(May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) upon his arrival at Yathrib after completing the Hijra in 622 CE. The song is currently over 1400 years old, and one of the oldest in the Islamic culture.
Tala‘ al-Badru ‘Alaynā (Arabic: طلع البدر علينا) is a traditional Islamic song (Nasheed) that the Ansar sung to the Prophet Muhammad(May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) upon his arrival at Yathrib after completing the Hijra in 622 CE. The song is currently over 1400 years old, and one of the oldest in the Islamic culture.
Tala ‘al Badru ‘Alayna
Chorus:
Tala al badru ‘alayna
Min thaniyati-al Wada’
Wajaba Shukru ‘alayna
Ma da’a lillahi da’
O the white moon rose over us
From the valley of Wada’
And we owe it to show thankfulness
Where the call is to Allah
Ayyuha-al Mab’uthu feena
Ji’ta bi-al amru muta’
Ji’ta sharafta-al Madeenah
Marhaban ya khayra da’
O you, who were raised amongst us
Coming with the words to be obeyed
You have ennobled this city
Welcome O caller to God’s way
Thursday, 17 February 2011
True Poverty is to Rely on Other than Allah
"Among the rules for commanding the good and forbidding the wrong is to depend less on others and eliminate desire for what they have, so as not to have to compromise one's principles. A story is told about one of the early Muslims who used to get meat each each day from the neighbourhood butcher for his cat. He noticed something blameworthy about the butcher, so he returned home and turned out the cat before returning to reprimand the man, who retorted, "From now on,I'm not going to give a thing for your cat", to which he replied,"I did not censure you til I gave up both the cat and any desire for what you have." And this is the fact of the matter. One cannot reprimand others as long as one is anxious for two things: the things that people give one, and their approval and praise of one."
-Imam al-Ghazali (May Allah have marcy on him)
-Imam al-Ghazali (May Allah have marcy on him)
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
How the Muslims Killed Dracula by Shibli Zaman
Born in the Ottoman Principality of Wallachia, Romania in 1435 AD, he was known as Radu al III-lea cel Frumos to his Romanian countrymen, Yakışıklı Radu Bey to the Turks, Radu al-Wasim to the Arabs, and Radu the Handsome in English. This ally and childhood friend of Sultan Mehmet II was instrumental in the conquest of Constantinople for Islam. Radu’s participation in that conquest ensured that Mehmet II would go down in history as “Fatih,” or “Conqueror.” Radu was the Ottomans’ secret weapon against the Safavids to the East and the Serbs, Romanians and Hungarians to the West. The Muslim world owes much to this hero of Islam, yet they recorded little other than cursory references to him, perhaps for fear of taking away from Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s limelight. The Byzantines recorded Radu as a reviled despot due to their hatred for his conversion to Islam and instrumental role in ending the Byzantine Empire.
Yet, this Ottoman general had a greater war, a war against darkness. He hunted the very progenitor of the vampire legend who impaled his enemies and drank their blood – Vlad al III-lea Ţepeş, also known as Vlad Drăculea, who would go down in infamy as, simply, Dracula. The character of Professor Abraham Van Helsing was no more than a figment of Bram Stoker’s terrifying imagination, but Sultan Mehmet II and Radu cel Frumos were perhaps the first and only true vampire hunters in history.
The Blood Brothers
Looking back, Radu’s devotion to Islam and to Sultan Mehmet II could be traced to the political alliance of their respective fathers before them. Vlad II from the House of Drăculeşti (“House of the Dragon”) was an ally and vassal of Sultan Mehmet’s father, Sultan Murad II. Vlad II had 4 sons: Mircea II, Vlad IV Călugărul (“The Monk”), Vlad III who would come to be known as Dracula, and Radu III cel Frumos (“The Handsome”). As a gesture of unity with the Sultan, Vlad II offered his sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve the Ottoman Sultan. Under the Janissaries they studied the Qur’an, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Islamic Theology and Jurisprudence, and, coveted above all, Turkish military strategy and tactics of war.
The Ottoman special forces who held a higher status both militarily as well as socially than the rank and file were the Janissaries and the Sipahis. The Janissaries were the elite infantry of the Ottoman military as well as the personal bodyguards of the Sultan and his family. The Sipahis were the elite cavalry who surrounded the Sultan in battle and would be sent to deal with the most stubborn of adversaries. They were the commandos and special forces of their day. Though the Sipahis were almost exclusively Turkic in origin as demanded by Sultan Mehmet II himself in his treatise of law entitled Kanun Nameh-e-Sipahi (“Law Book of the Sipahis”), the Janissaries, within whose ranks Dracula and Radu found themselves, were conversely converts to Islam.
The young Dracula continually abused and rebelled against his hosts earning himself imprisonment and castigation. Due to the heavy handedness of the Turks in response to his insolence, he developed a compounded and complex series of grudges. He hated his father for allying with the Turks, which he saw as a betrayal of the Order of the Dragon to which his father had sworn an oath. The Order of the Dragon was a Christian fraternity whose sole aim was to wipe out Islam from the Balkans forever. Dracula hated Radu for his successes and the favor the Turks bestowed upon him. He was filled with jealousy for the then young Mehmet II who, like him, was a prince, but, very unlike him, lived in splendor. He was also jealous of his brothers Mircea and Vlad the Monk due to what he perceived as his father’s preference for them. His sentiments for Mircea however, would teeter between jealousy and awe. It is from him that the young Dracula learned the terror tactic of impaling thousands to create forests of the dead.
Radu remained faithful to Islam and the Sultan and spent his entire life in battle on the frontiers of the Ottoman Empire, vanquishing the most difficult adversaries of the Empire. His natural knack for battle was unparalleled even amongst the Janissaries and elite Sipahis of the Ottoman military, and he would be called upon frequently to subdue any foe that seemed insurmountable. It is reported that he turned the very course of Near Eastern history when he stopped the mighty Ak Koyunlu from overrunning the Ottomans, an event that, if not stopped, would have definitely changed the faces of both the Middle East and Europe today. For this very reason, he was called upon to face the threat from his homeland of Wallachia that neither the elite Janissaries nor the Sipahis could route.
The Conquest of Constantinople
“On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were to remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege, if they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.” (George Sphrantzes, 1401-1478, Byzantine Christian chronicler and witness of the fall of Constantinople)
It was a time of relief and rejoicing. It was a relief for the inhabitants of Constantinople who expected a prompt culling following the fall of their city. It was a time of celebration for the entire Muslim world for this historical conquest of a city that has remained, to this very day, the capital of the Turks. Yet as Sultan Mehmet II rode into the city victorious, a glance over to his childhood friend and chief of the Janissaries, Radu cel Frumos, son of Vlad II Duke of Wallachia, may have served as a sobering reminder that to the North, beyond the spoils of Byzantium, their fiercest enemies lay in wait. Among those enemies was the most feared of them all, Dracula, who just so happened to be Radu’s own brother.
The Rise of Dracula
Opportunistic betrayal was the way of Wallachia’s rulers and in one such brief betrayal, Vlad II silently allowed his older sons, Mircea and Vlad IV, to launch an insurrection after which Mircea impaled all his prisoners upon stakes. The young Dracula loved the sight of this and later joined Mircea in further insurrections against the Ottomans as well as the rival Dăneşti clan supported by the Hungarian warlord, John Hunyadi. Ultimately, Hunyadi overran Dracula’s father, slew him in the marshes of Bălteni and blinded and buried Mircea alive at Târgovişte. Hunyadi installed a Dăneşti prince, Vladislav II, over Wallachia. In his ambition and lust for power, Dracula put aside any vengeful sentiments for his slaughtered father and brother and allied with Hunyadi and served him as an adviser. As John Hunyadi went to face the Turks at Belgrade in modern day Serbia, Dracula attacked and slew Vladislav and took the throne for himself. As fortune would have it, a plague broke out amongst Hunyadi’s camp, infecting him which lead to his death. Sultan Mehmet was severely wounded in the battle. These events left Dracula to rule Wallachia uninterrupted for 6 years. It was the only time he ruled his home for so long.
The Impaler
“I have killed men and women, old and young… We killed 23,884 Turks and Bulgarians without counting those whom we burned in their homes or whose heads were not cut by our soldiers.” (Dracula, in a letter to Matthias Corvinus bragging of his tyranny)
As Sultan Mehmet approached what appeared to be a fetid balding forest of rotting trees in the distance he soon realized the horror of what he approached. They were so close to their destination – the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște -that he was in no mood for this puzzling sight. But the figures became more clear as the steeds in the cavalry grew unruly and the infantry felt ill. Before him stood 20,000 impaled bodies of innocent men, women and children, all victims of Dracula in that winter of 1462.
Dracula’s Muslim upbringing, albeit abandoned in deference to opportunity, and fluency in Turkish enabled him to move about the Ottomans’ most secured camps freely as a Turk without being noticed. This had deadly consequences for the Muslims. Dracula had entered Serbia with his men all dressed as Turkish Sipahis and slaughtered all the Muslim villagers, and those non-Muslims friendly to them that they could find. The intent was to leave a horrifying memento for Sultan Mehmet whom they knew to be soon taking their capital city. They erected this unholy monument in a bid to alarm the Sultan and terrorize his troops in hopes that they might turn around and retreat home.
What is remarkable is that there are no records of mass desertion of Ottoman troops after witnessing this. They pressed on unflinchingly. However, some historians have suggested that Sultan Mehmet II lost his taste for hunting down the ‘vampire’ following this invasion of Wallachia and left the task up to the only one who was capable of hunting down Dracula and killing him. After taking the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște, Mehmet returned home, leaving the hunt to Radu. After all, it would take someone who knew the mind of Dracula to defeat him, and none fit this bill better than his own brother.
This event earned Dracula the name of Vlad Ţepeş, the Romanian word “Ţepeş” meaning “Impaler”. Legend has it that if you look closely at the word you can see Dracula’s fangs dangling beneath as a hidden warning to the vampire’s terrible lust for blood.
Radu vs. Dracula: Brothers in Blood
As Târgoviște was taken, Dracula fled towards Transylvania in hopes of finding refuge with John Hunyadi’s son Matthias Corvinus. As was typical of Dracula’s opportunism and lack of reverence for religion, he offered to become Catholic in order to win Corvinus’ favor. He scorched the earth and slaughtered all the living in his path leaving a wake of desolation and writhing impaled bodies. He would not give up his homeland to the Muslims that easily. He began a beleaguering campaign of guerilla warfare that the elite Ottoman Sipahis could not endure. It is said he slaughtered 15,000 of the Ottoman soldiers in one single night. Still, as the mightiest of the Ottomans fled, Radu was undeterred seemingly driven by what can only be interpreted as an austere piety, to end the bloody reign of his haplessly misguided brother. None remained to fight Dracula save Radu and his fellow Romanian Muslim Janissaries.
The brothers fought lingering battles for the throne of Wallachia and Radu’s control of the region increased staggeringly with Dracula receiving less and less support from Matthias Corvinus in Hungary. In a strange twist of fate, Corvinus, the one to whom Dracula retreated, had him imprisoned for 12 years on charges of high treason. The people of Wallachia and their Christian nobles had enough of Dracula’s terror and put their support behind Radu who was pronounced Voivod, Prince and Ruler of Wallachia in 1462. Radu ruled the land prosperously for 11 years until his death while Dracula wasted away in a Budapest prison patiently waiting to rise again from the darkness.
Dracula’s Release and Final Battle
After Radu’s death in 1473, Dracula was released from prison. He immediately assembled an army and invaded Bosnia, slaughtering its Muslim population and impaling 8,000 on stakes in a forest of human bodies. Once again, Dracula had arisen from the darkness with the objective of eliminating Islam from the Balkans forever. He finally acquired the throne of Wallachia after his departed brother, but only for a month. Sultan Mehmet invaded Wallachia to remove this profanity from the throne his dear friend Radu had vacated in death. In 1476 the forces of Sultan Mehmet faced the forces of Dracula in Bucharest, Romania. Dracula’s army was overrun in a blitz and all were killed, including Dracula himself. The vampire had been slain. News of this did not suffice. His head was cut off and preserved in a jar of honey and sent to Constantinople. There, in a fitting end, Dracula’s head was impaled upon a stake in the center of Constantinople for all to see. There was to be no doubt or mystery.
The Muslims had finally, at last, killed Dracula.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
■Dracula: Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad Ţepeş, Kurt W. Treptow
■Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula, Kurt W. Treptow
■The Complete Dracula, Radu Florescu, Raymond T. McNally
■Vlad Ţepeş, Prince of Walachia, Nicolae Stoicescu
■Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah fi-l `Usur al-Wusta (Arabic), Dr. Mahmud al-Huwayri
■Al-`Uthmaniyin fi-l Tarikh wal-Hadharah (Arabic), Dr. Muhammad Harb
■Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah (Arabic), Dr. Ali Hassoun
■Al-Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih (Arabic), Dr. Sayyid Ridwan
(Via Suhaib Webb's website)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)